The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet 2002-01-22� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Michael A. Lady Thomas A. Runels Jim Dickens Tony Ferrare Sandy �ubin INVOCATION Mayor � Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member AGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002 7:00 P.M. Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers 215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL 3. FLAG SALUTE 4. 5. 5.a. 5.b. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Proclamation - Snav Dav U.S.A. city of A�oyo Grancfe Steven Adams City Manager TlmothyJ.Cartnel CityAttomey Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services 7:00 P.M. BOY SCOUT TROOP 234 PASTOR ROBERT BANKER OPEN DOOR CHURCH, OCEANO Proclamation — Attained the Rank of Eaale Scout• Mark Georae Hasbun AGENDA REVIEW: 6.a. Move that all resolutions and ordinances presented tonight be read in title only and all further readings be waived. __ _ _ __ AGENDA SUMMARY — JANUARY 22, 2002 PAGE 2 7. Persons in the audience may discuss business not scheduled on this agenda regarding any item of interest within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council will listen to al� communication; however, in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action on items that are not on the agenda. Upon completing your comments: ♦ You may be directed to staff for assistance; ♦ A Council Member may indicate an interest in discussing your issue with you subsequent to the Council meeting; ♦ The Council may direct staff to research the issue and subsequently report back to the Council (generally in the form of a memorandum or staff report); or ♦ No action is required or taken. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: The following routine items listed below are scheduled for group. The recommendations for each item are noted. A may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consen discussion or change the recommended course of action. Th approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. consideration as a ny Council Member t Agenda to permit e City Council may 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification (SNODGRASS) Recommended Action: Approve the listings of cash disbursements for the period January 1, 2002 through January 15, 2002. [� r'.�'� :. ;� Recommended Action: Receive and file November 2001 Cash Report and approve the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds at 11/30/01. Recommended Action: Accept and file the report on the receipt and use of AB- 1600 fees during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001. Recommended Action: the City's Impact Fees. �oact Fees (SNODGRASS) approving the annual adjustment to Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving an adjustment to the in-lieu fees for off-street parking in the Parking and Business improvement area of the Village. AGENDA SUMMARY — JANUARY 22, 2002 PAGE 3 8. CONSENT AGENDA: (continued) 8.f. Consideration of Anoroval of Minutes (WETMORE/DAVIS) Recommended Action: Approve minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of December 11, 2001, and for the Regular City Council Meeting of January 8, 2002 as submitted. 8.g. Reiection of Claim Aaainst Citv - D. Cashier (WETMORE) Recommended Action: Reject claim. � Recommended Action: 1) Authorize payments that total $101,800 to affected utility companies including Pacific Gas & Electric ($80,500), Pacific Beil ($14,800), and Charter Communications ($6,500) for design and construction services on the Oak Park Boulevard Widening Project; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $10,800 for use only if needed for unanticipated undergrounding costs during the construction phase of the project. E� Recommended Action: Consider request to refund the fee for Temporary Use Permit 01-029. 8.j. Consideration of EIR Consultant Services Aareement. Creekside Center Pro ect (STRONG) Recommended Action: 1) Approve the Consultant Services Agreement; and 2) Approve the ApplicanYs Agreement. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 9.a. Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration, instructing the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010; 2) Review information regarding affordable housing assistance allocation and authorize housing funding assistance in the amount of $40,700; and 3) Review information regarding applicanYs request for park fee waivers and authorize a fee waiver of $3,985 of the Community Center Impact Fees and fee credit of $39,671.84 for Park Development Fees. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. AGENDA SUMMARY — JANUARY 22, 2002 PAGE 4 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. Prouosed Process for Traffic Wav Area Strateaic Plan (ADAMS) Recommended Action: Receive information and direct staff to proceed with the proposed Traffic Way Area Strategic Plan process. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects on which they may be participating. (a) MAYOR MICHAEL A. LADY: (1) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (2) Other (b) MAYOR PRO TEM THOMAS A. RUNELS: (1) Zone 3 WaterAdvisory Board (2) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) (3) Other c) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS: (1) Community Recreation Center Subcommittee (2) Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC) (3) South County Youth Coalition (4) Other (d) COUNCIL MEMBER TONY M. FERRARA: (1) Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) (4) Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (3) San Luis Obispo Council of Govemments/San Luis Obispo Regionai Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA) (4) Other (e) COUNCIL MEMBER SANDY LUBIN: (1) South County Area Transit (SCAT) (2) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) (3) Other 13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the Mayor and/or a Council Member who would like to receive feedback, direct staff to prepare information, and/or request a formal agenda report be prepared and the item placed on a future agenda. No formal action can be taken. a) Request to place on a future agenda presentation from the County Administrator on Measure A. (Dickens) AGENDA SUMMARY — JANUARY 22, 2002 PAGE 5 14. CITY MANAGER ITEMS: The following item(s) are placed on the agenda by the City Manager in order to receive feedback and/or request direction from the Council. No formal action can be taken. a) None. 15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Council. 16. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager. 17. ADJOURNMENT . « . . t . . Copies of the staff reports or other written materials relating to each item of business referred to on this agenda are on file with the Director of Administrative Services and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If you have questions regarding any agenda item, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473- 5414. . � * . . : . In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Director of Administrative Services at the number listed above at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. ,� � * . . ,. . Note: This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall for any revisions, or call the Director of Administrative Services at (805) 473-5414 for more information. www. a rro vo p ra n d e. o rq [9yl'L�7 • - • • � � ,.�:�-�,� A AB ADA AG AGMC AGPOA APN APCB APCD ARC ASCE ASD AW WA BD CA CC CCC CCCSIF CD CDBG CE CEC CEOA CIP CIWMP CM CMC CMP COC CPI CUP DARE DC DEA E.C. EDD EDU EIR EIS EOC EVC FAU FD FDAA FEMA FID FPPC FTA FY G.C. GC GF GP GPA HCD HOP HUD I ISTEA JPA Agricultural Preserve Assembly Bill Americans wiM DisabNities Ac[ General Agricullure Arroyo Grande MuniGpal Code Arroyo GrerMe Pdice Ofikers' Association Assessors Parcel Number Air Pdlutlon Control Board Alr Pdlutbn Control District Architedural Review CommiQee American Society Civll Engineers Administrative Services pepartrnent American Water Works Association Buildirp DiWsion City AHOmey City Council Califomia Conservatlon Corps Central Coast Gties Self-Insurance Fund Community Development Community Devebpment Block Grant Circulatlon Element Califamia Enerpy Commission Cali(amia Environmental Quality Act Capital Improvemenl Propram Califomia lMeprated Wasle Management Plan ciry nnanapers ottce Califomia Men's Cobny ConBestion Mana6ement Plan Certificate of Compliance Consumer Price Index Conditional Use Pertnit Drug Abuse Reststance Educatlon Development Cade Drup Enforcement AdmiNStratlon Electlon Code Economic Development Departrnent Equivabnt Owellinp Unit Environmental Impact Report Enviranmental Impact Statement Econanic Opportunity Commissian Economic Vitaliry Corporetion Federal Ald Urban Fire Dl�rislon Federal Disaster Aasisfance Administration Federel Emergency Manapement Agency Finandal Services DepaAment Fair Pditlpl Predices Canmission Federal Transk Administratlon Fiscal Year Govemment Code General Cammercial General Fund General Plan General Plan Amendment Califomia Departrnent of hbusing and Community Development Home Ocwpancy Pem�it Housirq and Urban Develo{xnent Dapt. Industrial arM Business PaAc Inlemwdal Surface Tronsportatlon Jdnt Powers Authority LAPCO LOCC LLA LUE MER MF MFA MHP O OCSD OSCE PC PD PF PPR PRD PRE-APP PSHHC PSP PUD PW RDA RE RFP RFQ RH RHNP RR RS RTA RWQCB SAC SB SCAT SEIU Sf SLO SLOCOG SLOHA SLONTF SLORTA SIOWRAC SR SSLOCOWA SSLOCSD SRRE SWRCD TPM n TTAC TUP UBC UFC USA VAR VC VCB VSR ZONE 3 Local Agency Formation Commission League of Califomia Cities Lot Line Adjusbnent Land Use Element Lot Merper . Condominium/Townhouse Apartnents Mobile Home Parks Office Profeaalonal Oceano Cammunily Serrices District Open Space and Conservatlon Element Planning Canmission Pdice Depar6nent Publid�uasi Public PbIPWn ReNew Parks & Recreation Depar6nent Preapplicatlon Peoples' Se1FHelp Housing Corp. Planned Sipn Program Planned Unit Development Public Works Departrnent Redevebpment Agenq Residential Estate Request fw Proposals Request fw �ualiflcations Hillside Residential Repional Housinp Needs Plan Rural Residentlal Suburban Residential Reversion to Acreape Regional Waler Quality ConVd Board Staff AdNsory Canmittee Senate Bill South County Hrea Transit Service Employees Intemational Union Sinple Family San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo CounGl of GovemmenLs San Luia Obispo Housing Authoriry San Luis Obispo Narcotics Task Face San Luia Obispo Repional Transit Authority San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Canmittee Seniw Housing SouM Sen Luls Obispo County Waler Associatlon SauM San Wis Obispo County Sanitation Distrid Source Redudion 8 Recycling Element State Water Resaurces Control Board Tenfative Parcel Map Tentative T2d Map Transportation Technical Advisory Canmittee Temporary Use Pertnit Unlfam Buildinp Code Unitam Flre Code Underpround SBMCe Alert Variance Villape Canmercial SI.O CouMy Visibrs & CoMerence Bureau View Shed ReNew San Luis Obiapo Counly Flood Control and Water Conservation Dlstrid — Zone 3(LOpez Project) 5.a. Honorary Proclamation ��1 �� ' .4i !�i i � i ' i i i Of February and February 26, 2002 A.s "�Spay Day UISA" WIIFIZEr1S, du�s and cats !�icc cump:�nionsl�ip to and sha�r 6omcs of u�cr 5l,000.000 individuals in tlic United tit:itcti; :ind WIIERT.AS, t�co un:Jtcrcd csits :�nd thcir kiUcus i•an produir 4'10,01111 �uorc cats in sc�rn v'c+u•s and t��u unaltc��:d do!�v and t6cir puppicti t�an produtY• lil.(1/111 mu�� da��ti in siz yc+�nti: s�nd WIIFRN:AS, humauc socicticc und til�cltcnc cutl�:�uirc 5 milliun do�a and eats cai•h �'car. tJfhou��h nuup of thcm ari• hcalth� and adoptabla .tiimph' bct•aasc thcre su�c not cnuu��h ;;uud hnmcti: und WIIF.IiF.AS, tl�c prolrlcm uf cump:iniun aniwal o�cr�rup�dation co�t.c tlic tacpsnc��ti uf this count�;v' milliuns ofdull�u�� :u�nu:�lh tlu•ou��h oinimal c•untrol pru�rams s�imcd at cupin!� witl� thc milliuns of'um�antcd dors and ents; and WtIF.RF.AS, spsn in� :�ntl neuterin!� du�.� :uid eatc I�as I�ecn ti6u�� n tu dra,titiealh �rducr do�� antl cat ovcrpupulatiun; and WIIFIiI,AS, �cterin:u•iaus. 6um:ine sucictics. :mtl n:rtional a�nd IoesJ animsJ prutcetiuu ur��anizatious wurl:cd tu!�ctl�cr tu cnsurc thc xpa�'im� ur ncutcriu�� of mu�r than ISII.111111 �•umpaniun auimals thruu�h "Spay Day USA" in '21101; and WHFILFAS, rctcrinarian.�, hum:�nc �ocictica. au�d n:diun�J :wd loc:il t�niuu�l protcetion or�:u�iza�tion.ti ha�c.loincd to�.cthcr a�"ain to :ith��eatc tl�c .vpaqin� :intl ncutcrin!� uf cump:wion ani�n:�ls durin� "Spay Day USA 2002". NOW, THEILF.I�'ORE, I3F IT RTSOLV�1), tlurt 1, Jlicl�acl ;\. I.ach. �I��r uf thc City uf ;�rro�o (:r:�nde, un Irch��lf uf thc City' Cu�u�eil. du I�crcby pruelaim th:it thc munth uf I�cl�ruau•� and 1�'cbrua�ry Y/i, '2011Y is dcci!�•natcd "Spay Day USA": and cnewu�a;,.c pcuplc of Arr��vo (:r:indc to obscr�c tlic munth Iry h:��in�� thcir o�rn do��v or c�atx spz�ycd or ucutcrcd ur b� spon.tiurin�� tl�c tipavin� ur ncutcrin!� uYanathcr �KCCUn'a do�� or eat. IN WITNEt515 WIIEREOF, 1 h��rc hcrcunto sct mv hand and c• Arroyo f:randc tu Ik affixcd this'L`l"° da� uf.lanuar� 2/1112. M ichacl A. I.ady, �I:�yor af' 5.b. , ., . �:;,� � wiii5l .��` and own EAGL NOW, � City of MA G this o resalted in Adobe;loc wire -mesh �- irrigatisn. : f .0 IN WITNESS the City of A� MICHAEL A. LADY, MA I � ' �� I I � i�� i� � � ��-�� . v �� . � . � for A�ing the R.a,nk of Ea�gle Scont Boy Sconts of America, since its fonnding in 1910 has been the nization for instilling positive values in its youth membership; two percent of all Boy Scouts nationwide attain �d Citizenship, Character Development, Ph} rs, are qualities promoted by the Boy Scout both attitade and action of Eagle Scouts; and, i 26 of Arroyo Grande, MARK GEORGE HAS I�y the sCOUT, and take se M� 'tment, diligence, and dedication in �g his Scont Project. The outcome of which vines i ont of the fence that surrounds the Dana . Th vines are pink and white Bower vines, with �ts to�otect from rodents, and a drip system for ' . -" s nto set my hand and cansed the Seal of this 22"" day of Janua� 8.a. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES BY: JANET M. HUWALDT, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR� SUBJECT: CASH DISBURSEMENT RATIFICATION DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period January 1— January 15, 2002. FUNDING: There is a$459,593.25 fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations. It is requested that the City Council approve these payments. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT 1— Cash Disbursement Listing ATTACHMENT 2— January 4, 2002 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT 3— January 11, 2002 Accounts Payable Check Register ATTACHMENT 4— January 11, 2002 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks ATTACHMENTI CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH DISBURSEMENTS For the Period of January 1 Through January 15, 2002 January 22, 2002 Presented are the cash disbursements issued by the Department of Financial Services for the period January 1 to January 15, 2002. Shown are cash disbursements by week of occurrence and type of payment. 4, 2002 Accounts Payable Cks 103999-104033 January 11, 2002 Accounts Payable Clcs 104034-104117 Payroll Checks and Benefit Checks 2 3 4 Two Week Total $ 20,362.89 165,555.88 273,674.48 439,230.36 $ 459.593.25 CITY OFARROYO GRANDE INDEX FOR BUDGET DEPARTMENTS EDEN COMPUTER SYSTEM GINERAL FUND (010� Citu Government (Fund O10) 4001 - City Council 4002 - Administrative Services 4003 - City Attorney 4101 - City Manager 4102 - Printing/Duplicating 4120 - Financial Services 4121 - Taxes/ Insurance/ Bonds 4130 - Community Development 4131 - Community Building (CDBG) 4140 - Management Information System 4145 - Non Departmental Public Safetu (Fund 010) 4201 - Police 4211 - Fire 4212 - Building & Safety Aublic Works (Fund O10) 4301 - Public Works-Admin & Engineering 4303 - Street/Bridge Maintenance 4304 - Sheet Lighting 4305 - Automoflve Shop Parks & Recreation (Fund 010) 4420 - Pazks 4421 - Recreation 4422 - General Recreation 4423 - Pre-School Program 4424 - Recreation-Special Programs 4425 - Children in Motion 4426 - Five CiHes Youth Basketball 4430 - Soto Sport Complex 4213 - Government Buildings 4460 - Parkway Maintenance SPECTAL REVENUE FUNDS Pazk Development Fee Fund (Fund 213) 4550 - Park Development Fee Traffic Signal Fund (Fund 222) 4501 - Traffic Fund Transportarion Fund (Fund 225) 4553 - Public Transit System Conatruction Taz Fund (Fund 230) 4556 - Construction Tax Police Grant Funds 4201 - Law Enforcement Equip. (Fd 272) 4202 - State AB3229 Cops Grant (Fd 271) 4203 - Federal Universal Hiring (Fd 274) 4208 - Federal Local Law Enforcmt (FD 279) Redevelopment Agency ( Fund 284) 4103 - Redevelopment Adminislration ENTERPRISE FUNDS Sewer Fund (Fund 612) 4610 - Sewer Maintenance Water Fund (Fund 640) 4710 - Water Administraflon 4711 - Water Production 4712 - Water Distribution Lopez Administration (Fund 641) 4750 - Lopez Adminishation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS fFund 350� 5501-5599 - Park Projects 5601-5699 - Streets Projects 57015799 - Drainage Projects 5801-5899 - Water/Sewer/Street Projects 59015999 - Water Projects Depc IMex for Council.xla ATTACHI�UEi�T 2 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE �1/03/02 12:58 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NOMBER DATE NOMBER NAME DESCRIPPION NOMBER 103999 O1/04/02 102441 TANA ARANDA REPR.TOAN SEAT-SUBURBPN 010.4211.5601 104000 O1/04/02 102]69 ROBERTO AAROYO REF.WTR DEP-115'/ CLEVENGER RD 640.0000.2302 104000 O1/04/02 102769 ROBERTO ARROYO CLOSING HILL-1157 CLEVENGER 690.0000.9751 109000 O1/04/02 102969 ROBERTO ARROYO PREVIOUS BALANCE-115] CLEVENGE 640.0000.4951 104001 O1/09/02 101923 MICHELLE BERGSTAD REF WTR DEP-508 CAROL PL 640.0000.2302 104001 O1/09/02 101923 MICHELLE BERGSTAD CLOSING BILL-508 CAF20L PL 640.0000.9051 104001 O1/04/02 101923 MICHELLE BERGSTAD REF.OVER/PYMT-508 CPROL PL 690.0000.4751 104001 O1/04/02 101923 MICHELLE BERGSTAD PREVIOUS BALTNCE-508 CAROL PL 640.0000.4'151 104001 O1/04/02 101923 MICHELLE BERGSTAD AEF.ISSOED-508 CAROL PL 640.0000.4']51 304002 O1/09/02 019160 CA.ST.BOPJ2D OF EQUALIZA USED TAX ON SEWER EQOIPMENT 612.9610.6201 104003 O1/04/02 102771 ROSE CARPENTER REF.WIR DEP-850 HUASNA RD 640.0000.2302 104003 O1/04/02 102']']1 ROSE CARPENTER CIASING BILL-850 HUASNA RD 640.0000.4']51 109003 O1/04/02 102771 ROSE CARPENTER PREVIOUS BAW�NCE-850 HUASNA 640.0000.9'/51 104004 O1/04/02 102186 GRACE CFUING REF.WTR DEP-386 SPANISH MOSS 640.0000.2302 104009 O1/04/02 102186 GRACE CHANG CLOSING HILL-386 SPANISH MOSS 640.0000.4951 104009 O1/�4/02 102186 GRACE CHANG REF.OVER/PYMT-386 SPANISH MOSS 640.0000.4951 109004 O1/04/02 102186 GRACE CHANG PREVIOUS BALANCE-386 SPANISH 640.0000.9'!51 104004 O1/04/02 102186 GRACE CHANG REF.ISSUED-386 SPANISH MOSS 640.0000.4]59 104005 O1/04/02 102]23 CO�RCIAL MAINTENANCE WOMEN'S CLUB FLOORS 010.4213.5303 109006 O1/04/02 028548 DAYSTAR INDUSTRIES SIREET SWEEPING 612.4610.5303 104007 O1/04/02 099006 RICHARD DEBLAUW CLOSING BILL-1198 FAIR OAKS AV 640.0000.4751 10400'/ O1/04/02 099006 RICHARD DEBLA[1W REF.OVER/PYMT-1148 FAIR OAKS 640.0000.4]51 10400� O1/04/02 099006 RICHARD DEBLAUW PREVIOUS HALANCE-1148 FAIR OAK 640.0000.9751 109000 O1/04/02 099006 RICHARD DEBLAUW REF.LATE FEE-1148 FAIR OAKS 640.0000.4]59 104008 O1/04/02 02'/456 DFM ASSOCIATES 2002 CA.ELECTION CODE 010.4�02.5506 104009 O1/04/02 102766 MORLEY OR PAT FARQUAR REF.OVER/PYMT-344 VIA BANDOLER 640.0000.9'!51 104010 O1/09/02 033150 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP FEDEX-DUFFY & ASSOC 010.9130.5201 109011 O1/04/02 1013'/9 FEAGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN METER GASKETS 640.4712.5610 104012 O1/04/02 102'/79 LESTER FERRARI CLOSING BILL-220 ALDER ST #C 640.0000.4'/51 104012 01/04/02 302994 LESTER FERRARI AEF.OVER/PYMT-220 ALDER ST 1{C 640.0000.4951 104013 O1/04/02 101604 BPS2BIE GARY REIN�.SNACK SUPPLIES-GARY 010.4425.5259 104013 O1/09/02 101609 BARBIE GARY REIMB.SUPPLIES-GARY 010.4425.5255 104014 O1/04/02 102]67 HELEN M GROSENHACH CLOSING BILL-601 DEL SOL 690.0000.4751 104014 O1/04/02 102767 HELEN M GROSENBACH REF.OVER/PYMT-601 DEL SOL 640.0000.4951 104014 O1/04/02 102]6] HELEN M GROSENBACH PREVIWS BALANCE-601 DEL SOL 640.0000.4951 PAGE 1 ITEM CHECK AMOUNT AMOUNT 55.00 180.00 29. /l- 54.90- 160.00 23.83- 62.64 62.64- 93.53- 33.00 180.00 11.28- 151.11- iao.oa 8.15- /3.89 "/3.04- 98.01- 890.00 5,981.49 34.88- 184.96 71.!!- 3.02- 42.90 119.12 23.60 35.31 49.]2- ]0.93 49.03 /8.04 5.56- 43.36 18.90- 55.00 100.39 62.64 33.00 1].61 ]3.89 890.0� 5,981.49 14.]9 42. 90 119.12 23.60 35.31 21.21 122.0] 10.90 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE O1/03/02 12:58 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 V WCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACWUNl NOhIDER DATE NOMBER NAME DESCRIPTION [�p�gg 104015 O1/04/02 102'/]5 BILL HAWKINS CLOSING BILL-346 MERCEDES LN 640.0000.4751 104015 O1/04/02 102995 BILL HAWKINS REF OVER/PYMT-346 MERCEDES LN 640.0000.4951 104015 O1/09/02 102]]5 BILL HAWKINS PREVIOUS BALI�NCE-346 MERCEDES 640.0000.4]51 104016 O1/04/02 091184 HEACOCK WELDING NORTH TOOL HOX/HOOKS/RACR/BRAI(E CONT 010.4421.6301 104010 O1/04/02 102230 DANIEL HOLLPND REF.WTR DEP-280 SPRUCE ST 690.0000.2302 10401'/ O1/04/02 102230 DANIEL HOLLAND CLOSING BILL-280 SPRUCE 640.0000.4751 104017 O1/04/02 102230 DANIEL HOLLAND REF.O/PMT-280 SPRUCE 640.0000.4]51 10401] O1/04/02 102230 DANIEL HOLLPND PREV.BALANCE-280 SPRUCE 690.0000.9951 109017 O1/�4/02 102230 DANIEL HOLI.AND REF.ISSUED-280 SPRUCE 640.0000.4759 104018 O1/04/02 102968 CHPS2LES E. HUNT REF.WTR DEP-842 CREEKSIDE 690.0000.2302 104018 O1/04/02 102768 CHARLES E. HUNT CLOSING BILL-892 CREEKSIDE 640.0000.4'/51 104019 O1/04/02 102'/01 INDOFF,INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.9130.5201 109020 O1/09/02 044496 INFORMATION SERVICES DAS SVCS-WEEKS 4] & 48 010.4140.5303 104020 O1/04/02 044996 INFORNATION SERVICES DATA COhA1 SUPPORT-B DAVIS 010.4140.5303 104021 O1/04/02 100869 KIS COhANNIGTIONS,INC WEHSITE HOSTING-JPN-MPSiCH 010.4140.5303 104022 O1/04/02 102772 SEAN OR MONA LANDERS REF.WTR.DEP-331 GARDEN 640.0000.2302 104022 O1/04/02 102772 SEAN OR MONA L�ANDERS CLOSING BILL-331 GARDEN 640.0000.4951 104023 O1/04/02 102272 DONN W. MILLER REF.WTR.DEP-665 ASILO 690.0000.2302 104023 O1/04/02 102292 DONN W. MILLEA CLOSING BILL-665 ASIIA 640.0000.4951 104023 O1/09/02 102272 DONN W. MILLER AEF.O/PMT-665 ASSLO 640.0000.4751 109023 O1/04/02 1022]2 DONN W. MILLER PREV.BALANCE-665 ASILO 640.0000.4751 104023 O1/04/02 1022'/2 DONN W. MILLER REF.ISSUED-665 ASILO 640.0000.4]59 104024 O1/04/02 057252 MISSION UNIFORN SERVICE ONIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 640.4]12.5143 109029 O1/04/02 OS']252 MISSION IINIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 612.9fi10.5193 104025 O1/04/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL INSTL NEW LINES-MIS 4]3-5141 010.4140.6101 304025 O1/09/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL INSTL NEW LINES-MIS 473-5141 010.4195.5403 104025 O1/04/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL INSTL.CIRCUITS-MIS 391-659'] 030.4140.6101 109025 O1/04/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL INSTL.CIRCUITS-MIS 3]1-6547 2]2.4201.6101 104025 O1/09/02 063960 PACIFIC HELL MIS DATALINE-4'/3-0379 010.4190.5303 104025 O1/04/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARN 973-1935 690.4710.5903 104025 O1/04/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL ALARM 473-2041 010.4145.5403 104025 O1/09/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL PHONE 4]3-5400 010.4145.5403 104026 O1/09/02 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5902 104026 O1/04/02 064194 PACIFIC GPS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 010.4304.5402 10402'1 O1/09/02 1026'/3 PULITZER PUBLICATION-ORD#110955 010.9002.5301 109028 O1/04/02 102']73 LAORIE RENDON RODRIQUE2 REF.WTR.DEP-ll5 S.ALPINE 640.0000.2302 104028 O1/04/02 102'!'!3 LAIIRIE RENDON RODRIQUE2 CLOSING BILL-115 S.ALpINE 640.0000.4]51 PAGE 2 TTEM CHECK AMOUNT AMOUNT 22. ]1- 15 ].'/2 56.15- ]8.86 1,166.04 1,166.04 100.00 23.19- 61.52 61.52- 95.29- 61.52 180.00 91.]6- 1/.32 2,073.12 229.00 89.85 180.00 69.94 180.40 ].OS- 53.68 53.68- 119.2]- 79.65 65.05 739.9/ 96].56 2,5]0.48 1,861.58 109.57 29.88 14. /9 1.689.62 139.21 129.2] 539. �0 60.00 3z.o�- 88.24 ll.32 2,29'/.12 89.85 110.06 53.68 144.70 7,476.95 268.98 534.00 2/.93 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF AAROYO GRANDE O1/03/02 12:58 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NOhIDER DATE NOMBER NAME DESCRIPTION N[R4BER 104029 O1/04/02 102740 RPNDY SMAF2T REF.WTR.DEP-849 CREEKSIDE 640.0000.2302 104029 O1/09/02 102']40 RANDY SMAAT CLOSING BILL-899 CREEI(SIDE 640.0000.4951 104029 O1/04/02 102]90 RANDY SMAFiT REF.O/PMT-899 CREEKSIDE 640.0000.4751 109029 O1/04/02 102'/40 RANDY SMART PREV.BALANCE-849 CREEKSIDE 690.0000.4']51 104029 O1/04/02 102740 RANDY SMAR'f REF.ISSUED-849 CREEKSIDE 640.0000.4759 104030 O1/04/02 088084 UNITED GREEN MARK,INC. BOX/KEY 010.4420.5605 109031 O1/04/02 087672 UNITED RENTALS RENTAL-EXT.LADDER 612.4610.5552 104032 O1/09/02 102770 CLAZRE VOLLMER CIASING BILL 395 SPANISH MOSS 640.0000.4]51 104032 O1/04/02 302'1]0 CLAIRE VOLLMER REF.O/PMT-395 SPANISH MOSS 640.0000.4']51 104032 O1/04/02 102'/'/0 CLAIRE VOLLMER PREV.BAL-395 SPANISH MOSS 690.0000.9]51 109033 O1/04/02 0922]4 STEVE WHITNEY REIMB.HAGS/KITCHEN SUPPLIES 010.4211.5255 TOTAL CHECRS ITEM AMOUNT 180.00 11.99- 10'/.98 107.98- eo.os- 19.60 13.91 3. SA 115.36 55.92- 99.36 PAGE 3 CNECK AMOUNT 107.98 19.60 13.91 55.92 19.36 20,362.89 VOUCHRE2 O1/03/02 12:58 FUND TITLE O10 GENERAL FUND 2'/2 CA LAW ENFORCMI' TCFII�]LGY EQUIP. 612 SEWER FUND 640 WATER FOND TOTAL CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 AMOUNT 11,190.33 1,861.58 6,093.45 1,21'/.53 20,362.89 PAGE 4 ATTACI-IPAE;dT 3 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE O1/OB/02 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECR REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACWUNT NOMBER DATE NVl�IDER NAME DESCRIPTION NOMBER 104034 O1/11/02 002340 SOHN ALLEN REIhID.SRT PHOTOGRAPHS-SETOP 010.4201.52]2 104035 O1/11/02 102']82 ROXANN& ALLEN R E A SRT PATCHES 010.9201.52]2 109036 O1/11/02 004914 APEX SNARPENING WORRS BLADE SHARPENED 220.4303.5603 10403] O1/11/02 102509 API WASTE SERVICES R/0 BIN-DUMP/RETURN SVCS. 010.4213.5303 109037 O1/11/02 102509 API WASTE 56RVICES R/0 BIN-DUMP/RE'1'ORN SVCS. 010.4213.5303 104038 O1/11/02 006006 ARROYO GRANDE FLOWER SH FIAWERS-ANDERSON/LADY/FOWLER 010.4201 5504 104039 O1/11/02 006552 ARROYO MEDICAL GROIIP IN PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 010.4201.5315 104039 O1/11/02 006552 PRROYO MEDICAL GROUP IN PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 010.9201.5315 304040 O1/11/02 010296 HEACH FRONT AI1T0 SERVIC SMOG CERT-929 010.4201.5601 104040 O1/11/02 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC SMOG CERT-951 010.4201.5601 109040 O1/11/02 010296 BEACH FRONT AUTO SERVIC SMOG CERT-961 010.4201.5601 104090 O1/11/02 010296 BEACN FRONT AUTO SERVIC SMOG CERT-943 010.4201.5601 109091 O1/11/02 102'!98 LAURA BENNETT REF.C/B DEP-BENNETT 010.0000.2206 1�4041 O1/11/02 3029]8 LAOftA BENNETT HLDG.SUPER-BENNETT 01�.0000.4355 104042 O1/11/02 010800 BERETTA USA CORP. EXTRACTOR 010.920L 5603 104043 O1/11/02 101989 BERNARD'S H.D. SPECIALT VALVES/LUBE/OIL/FOOTBOARD 010.4201.5601 104043 O1/11/02 101987 B£RNARD'S N.D. SPECIALT LUBE/OIL/CLUTCH CABLE/BRAICES 010.9201.5601 104044 O1/11/02 102'/80 SHERYL BLANKENSHIP REF:S C Y/BALL-BLANRENSHIP 010.0000.4613 109095 O1/11/02 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUhffiER FLOOD HLUBS 010.9213.5604 104045 O1/11/02 013026 BRISCO MILL S LUMBER RED CEMENT COLOR 640.4]12.5610 104045 O1/11/02 013026 HRISCO MILL fi LUPiBER PILOT GENERATOR/REPR.HEATER 010.4213.5604 104095 O1/I1/02 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUDIDER PLASTIC 220.9303.5613 104045 O1/11/a2 013026 BRISCO MILL & LUhIDEA WIRE WHEELS/SAND PAPER 220.4303.5601 304046 O1/11/02 013806 HURKE AND PACE OF AG LOhffiER 350.5632.9002 104046 O1/11/02 013806 BURHE AND PACE OF AG LUhIDER STAKES 350.5632.'/002 10404'/ O1/11/02 016692 G.PEACE OFFICER'S ASSN LEGIS.DIGEST SVCS TO 1/31 010.4201.5503 109049 O1/11/02 016692 CA.PEACE OFFICER'S ASSN LEGAL SVCS PREMIUM-12/31/02 010.4201.5303 109047 O1/11/02 016692 CA.PEACE OFFICER'S ASSN LEGAL UPDATE REVIEW SVCS 010.4201.5303 104048 O1/11/02 101.099 CA.REDEVELOPMENT ASSOC REGIS-DIANE SHEELEY-CRA MTG. 284.4103.5501 304049 O1/11/02 1�2366 CA.ST.DEPT.JUSTICE RENEWAL-2ND HAND DEALER LIC. 010.0000.4808 104050 O1/11/02 102981 CAPE 2002 CONFERENCE REGIS-DICK RAYBORN GPE 2002 010.920L 5501 104051 O1/11/02 102669 CASHIER QA RENEWAL-MCCLIIRE 010.4420.5501 104052 O1/11/02 102652 CENTRAL COAST GASES OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 640.4]12.5303 ITEM AMOUNT izo.00 50.00 30.00 250.00 250.00 2'1'1.13 88.00 6�.00 28.'!5 28.]5 28.IS 28.95 zso.oa 153.00- 56.00 523.66 668.35 45.00 28.83 6.41 35.65 25.66 46.95 2.57 5919 120.00 950.0� 60.00 4/5.00 io.00 150.00 90.00 26.04 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT i2o.aa 50.00 30.00 500.00 2]].13 148.00 115.00 97.00 56.00 1,192.01 45.00 143.50 61.]9 630.00 4]5.00 ia.00 150.00 no.00 VOUCHAE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRPNDE �1/OB/02 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOA PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACWUNT N[JMHER DATE N[1hIDER NAME DESCRIPTION Nl1MBER 304052 O1/11/02 102652 CENTRAL COAST GASES OXYGEN/ACETYLENE 010.9305.530? 104053 O1/11/02 021918 CENTRAL COAST SUPPLY HLDG MAINT,SUPPLIES 010.9213.5609 109053 O1/11/02 021918 CENIRP.L COAST SUPPLY HLI%9 MAINT.SOPPLIES 010.4213.5609 104054 O1/11/02 022632 CHAPARRAL COPIER MAINT/USEAGE 010.4921.5602 104059 01/11/02 022632 CHAPARRAL OVERAGE 010.4421.5602 104055 O1/11/02 023088 CHERRY LANE NORSERY RONSTAR 010.4420.5279 1040$5 O1/11/02 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY BOX OAKS/ALDER 010.4420.5308 104055 OS/11/02 023088 CRERRY LANE NURSERY LANTANA 010.4420.5605 309055 O1/11/02 023088 CHERRY LANE NORSERY OAK 010.4420.5605 304055 O1/11/02 023088 CHERRY LANE NURSERY EVERGREEN PEAR/LODGE POLES 010.4920.5605 104056 O1/11/02 024492 COLD CANYON LI�ND FILL GREEN WASTE DOMP 220.4303.530] 109056 O1/11/02 024492 WLD CANYON LAND FILL GREEN WASTE DUMP 220.4303.5307 10405] O1/11/02 024832 COfMi[1NICATION SOLUTIONS REPR.COhA1.SY5-LIFT STATION#4 612.4610.5610 104058 C1/11/02 100188 CSMFO 2002 ANN[]AL CONFE REGIS-LYNDA SNODGRA55 CSMFO 02 010.4120.5501 104059 O1/11/02 026832 C[SESTA EQUIPMENT CO HARD HATS/SAFETY GLOVES 640.4912.5255 109059 O1/ll/02 026832 C[lESTA EQUIPMENT CO COLD MIX/TARP 220.4303.5255 104060 O1/11/02 029989 DIESELRO INC. FILTERS-PW51 612.4610.5601 109060 O1/11/02 029984 DIESELRO INC. BIT INSPECTION-PW41 220.4303.5601 109060 O1/11/02 029484 DIESELAO INC. BIT INSPECT-PW 51 612.4610.5601 104060 O1/11/02 029484 DIESELRO INC. BIT INSPECTION-PW29 220.9303.5601 104a60 O1/11/02 029989 DIESELRO INC. BIT INSPECTION-PW32 640.4'/12.5601 104060 O1/11/�2 029484 DIESELRO INC. HIT INSPECTION-PW19 220.4303.5601 109060 O1/11/02 029484 DIESELRO INC. B.I.T.INSPECT-PW 50 220.4303.5601 104061 O1/11/02 100956 DOKI(EN ENGINEERING CORP ENGINEERING SVCS EL CAMPO 350.5616.]]O1 104062 O1/11/02 030030 DOWNEY FORD 2 FORD CROWN VICTOAIAS-2002 010.9201.6301 109063 O1/11/02 102574 EARTHLINK,INC INTERNET SVCS-DEC/SAN 010.42015607 104064 O1/11/02 1013'/9 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN BACKFLOW DEVICE 640.4]12.5610 109069 O1/11/02 101379 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN MJ CAP/RESTRAINED GLANDS 640.4712.5610 104064 O1/11/02 1013]9 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,IN FLEX COUPLINGS 612.4610.5610 109065 O1/11/02 035802 FRANK'S LOCK fi KEY INC KEY REPLACEMENT 640.4712.5255 104065 O1/11/02 035802 FRANK'S LOCK & KEY INC REPR.FRONT DOOR LOCA 010.4213.5604 104065 O1/11/02 035802 FRANK'S LOCK S REY INC DVP.KEYS/KEY TAGS 010.4420.5605 104065 01/11/02 035802 FRANK'S LOCR & KEY INC DUP.KEYS 010.9920.5605 104065 O1/11/02 035802 FRANR'S LOCK 6 KEY INC DUP.KEYS/TAGS 010.4201.5601 104065 O1/11/02 035802 FRPNK'S LOCK S KEY INC KEY RINGS 010.4201.5601 104065 01/11/02 035802 FRANK'S LOCK 6 REY INC DOP.KEYS 010.4420.5605 104065 O1/11/02 035802 FRANK'S LOCK 5 KEY INC AMERICAN LOCKS 010.4420.56�5 109065 O1/11/02 035802 FRANK'S LOCK 6 KEY INC MASTER LOCKS 690.4012.5255 ITEM AMOUNT 26.03 273./1 239.68 94.00 24.48 85.59 111.10 159.9"/ 62.97 '/1.51 91.00 96. /S 190.00 225.00 39.06 169.89 35.60 ]8.00 ]8.00 78.00 /8.00 '/8.00 ]8.00 2],935.20 9"],389.14 91.90 112.35 82.82 164.]9 6.]9 55.00 7.19 34.68 12.20 4.28 9.82 88.28 123.91 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOSINT 52.0] 513.39 118.48 991.14 18].]5 190.00 225.00 208.95 503.60 2],935.20 4'J,389.14 41.90 359.96 33].13 VOOCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE O1/OB/02 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECA CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACWUNT NOI+�ER DATE N[1M8ER NAME DESCRIPTION N[1MBER 104066 O1/11/02 036'/38 GALL'S INC NIK TEST U-METHAMPHETAMINE 010.4201.5255 10906'/ O1/11/02 101604 HARHIE GARY REIhID.SNACR SUPPLIES 010.4425.5259 10406] O1/11/02 101609 BARBIE GARY REIhID.SUPPLIES 010.4425.5255 109068 O1/11/02 0383']6 GRAND AUTO PARTS FOSES 010.4201.5601 104069 O1/11/02 101088 HANSON AGGAEGATES A$PHALT 220.4303.5613 1040'/0 O1/11/02 092354 HI STANIJARD AUTOMOTIVE 2 LIGHTBARS/SIGNAL MASTER 010.4201.6301 104071 OS/11/02 101102 HIGH TECHNOLOGY CRIME HTCIA DUES-BRIDGE 010.4201.5503 104072 O1/11/02 045162 INTL CONF OF BUILDING 0 CLASS A MEhIDER�0033'/50 010.4212.5503 1040"/3 O1/11/02 101848 INVENSYS METERING SYSTE METER CfiAMBERS/GASI�TS 640.4712.520'/ 1040']3 O1/11/02 101898 INVENSYS METERING SYSTE METER CHAhIDERS/GASI(ETS/REGISTE 640.4']12.5611 104073 O1/11/02 101848 INVENSYS METERING SYSTE METER CHAI+�ERS/GASKETS/RINGS 640.4']12.5611 1040�3 O1/11/02 101848 INVENSYS METERING SYSTE WATER METERS 690.9]12.5207 104�94 O1/11/02 096098 J C LANDSGPSNG LANDSCAPE MAINT. 010.4420.5303 1040]4 O1/11/02 046098 J C LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE MAINT. 21'/.9460.5356 109075 O1/11/02 046910 J.W.ENTERPRISES TOILET RENTAL 220.4303.5552 1040']6 O1/11/02 10008'/ HOLLY JARRATT JAZZERCISE CLPSSES 010.9424.5351 1040'/'/ O1/11/02 101384 JB DESIGN SPOTLIGHT HANDLES/SWITCH 010.4201.5601 1040]8 O1/11/02 048438 KEY TERMITE & PEST CONT HIMONTHLY PEST CONTROL SVCS 010.4201.5604 1090'/9 O1/11/02 098516 KEYLOCK SECURITY SPECIA KEYS 010.4201.5609 104080 O1/11/02 1011'/3 LONGS DRIIG STORE NOV PHOTO PROCESSING 010.4201.5255 109080 O1/11/02 1011]3 LONGS DRUG STORE NOV MISC CHARGES 010.4201.5255 104081 O1/11/02 056628 MID STATE BANR-MASTEACA GPSOLINE 030.4201.5608 109081 O1/11/02 056628 MID STATE HANK-MASTERCA OFFICE SUPPLIES 010.4201.5201 104081 O1/11/02 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA PUBLICATIONS 010.4201.5255 109081 O1/11/02 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA TRAINING EXPENSES 010.4201.5501 104081 O1/11/02 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA DRE/CHRISTMAS TREE SPItAY 010.4201.5255 104081 O1/11/02 056628 MID STATE BANK-MPSTERCA RUSSIAN DELEGATION MTG 010.4201.5501 104081 01/11/02 056628 MID STATE BANK-MASTERCA SANTA CLAUS SUITS 010.4201.5509 104082 O1/11/02 056399 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAICE SHOCK ABSORBERS/SERVICE-PW24 640.4912.5601 104082 O1/11/02 056394 MIDAS MUFFLER & BRAKE LUBE/OIL/SERVICE-PW58 220.4303.5601 104083 O1/11/02 OSfi990 MIER BROS. CONCAETE 350.5632.7002 109083 O1/11/02 056990 MIER BROS. COBBLE STONES 220.4303.5613 104085 O1/11/02 OS]096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE TIMER 010.4420.5605 ITEM AMOUNT 124.0] 281.06 13.90 86.61 193.64 3,218.56 40.00 195. 00 1,058.61 491.2� 1,031.52 946.95 525.00 225.00 91.']3 140.54 93.33 40.00 1.61 28.83 21.38 25.8] 30'/.84 21./S 219.44 168.26 26 . 99 445.01 320.49 25.19 '/5.11 205.98 21.39 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 124. 0'/ 294.96 86.61 193.69 3,218.56 ao.00 195.00 3,528.28 /50.00 91.]3 190.54 93.33 40.00 1.61 50.21 1,215.14 345.63 281.09 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PAGE 9 O1/OB/02 15:13 VOUCftER/CHECR REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR N[1MHER DATE NUhIDER NAME 109085 O1/11/02 OS']096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS]096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 059096. MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS]096 MINEA'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HAADWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS'/096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 304085 O1/11/02 OS'l096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS'/096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS'/096 MINER'S ACE HARDWPRE 104085 O1/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 109085 O1/11/02 05�096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS]096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS]096 MINEA'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 OS/11/02 057096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 059096 MINER'S ACE HPS2DWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS]096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS]096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 109005 O1/11/02 050096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 104085 O1/11/02 OS'/096 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NOMBER ITEM AMOONT CHECK AMOUNT PAINT PAINT CR:PAINT WOOD STAIN PAINT FLARE CONNECTOR BOLTS HINGE BULB BIILB HOSE CLAMPS/PIPE CONNECTOR/eULB Q-CONNECP/COUPLERS HEX HUSHINGS/NIPYLES GLOVES/AX HANDLE GROM[ILCH SPRAY PAINT CUP BROSH/SANDING DISK AA BATTERY/MASON JAR WASHER/BOLT/NqT MISC.HAND TOOLS WALL PLATE/HARDWARE PORCELAIN REPAIR pAINT BOWL WAX RING 104086 O1/11/02 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 104086 O1/11/02 OS]1'/4 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 104086 O1/11/02 057174 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 104086 O1/11/02 OS]1'/4 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 109086 O1/I1/02 057179 MISSION OFFICE PLUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 10408] O1/11/02 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 1090B] O1/11/02 OS]252 MISSION ONIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 104087 O1/11/02 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SEAVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 10408] O1/11/02 OS'/252 MISSION IINIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 10408'/ O1/11/02 OS]252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 104087 O1/11/02 057252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 10408] O1/11/02 OS]252 MISSION ONIFORM SERVICE i1NIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 104087 O1/11/02 OS'/252 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORMS/MATS/TOWELS 104088 O1/11/02 060294 NAT'L EhffiLEM,INC. 104089 O1/11/02 061814 NOBLE SAW,INC. 109089 O1/11/02 061814 NOBLE SAW,INC. 104089 O1/11/02 061814 NOHLE SAW,INC. 104089 O1/11/02 061819 NOBLE SAW,INC. 104089 O1/11/02 061814 NOBLE SAW,INC. AGPD SHOULDER PATCHES REPR.CHAIN SAW REPR.CHAIN SAW/SPARK PLOG GREASE TUBE COIMfEAICAL EDGER COhAtERICAL EDGER-SSC 010.4201.5604 010.4201.5604 010.4201.5604 010.4201.5604 220.4303.5601 010.4420.5605 640.4]12.5610 640.4712.5610 612.4610.5255 612.4610.5255 010.4420.5605 612.9630.5255 640.4'/12.5610 010.4420.5605 220.9303.5255 010.4420.5605 612.4610.5603 220.4303.5603 690.9712.5255 612.4610.5603 010.4420.5605 010.9920.5605 030.4213.5604 010.4213.5604 612.9610.5201 010.4421.5201 010.4421.5201 010.9921.5201 289.4103.5201 010.4213.5303 690.9712.5143 612.4610.5143 010.4420.5193 010.9213.5303 010.4213.5303 010.4213.5303 220.4303.5143 010.4201.5255 220.4303.5603 220.4303.5603 220.4303.5603 010.9920.5273 010.4430.52']3 104090 O1/11/02 063296 OVERHEAD DOOR CO.OF SLO ROLLUP DOOR-WELL ]/8 BLDG 350.5908.']002 104091 O1/11/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL 973-2198 010.4145.5903 22.]6 8.59 6.41- 1.27- 39.56 9.43 62 2. J'] 6.93 1.92 3. /2 3.64- io.n 5.31 44.36 10.68 25.68 31.06 20.77 18 25.20 3.53 2.35 95 21.33 111.04 13.35 ].09 2 ] . 8'/ 106.13 62.73 33.98 263.45 31.52 28.00 68.60 106.36 2']6.16 100.63 ]00.]] '/51.78 751.'/B 62.95 29. !6 42.2] 481.50 481.50 1,092.48 598.00 548.00 3]9.0'/ VOOCHItE2 CITY OF AAROYO GRANDE O1/OB/02 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECR REGISTER FOA PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NOhffiER DATE NOMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 104091 O1/11/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL 473-5100 104091 O1/11/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL 473-5141 104091 O1/11/02 063960 PACIFIC HELL 981-6944 104091 O1/ll/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL 271-9480 104091 O1/11/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL 26']-8633 109091 O1/11/02 063960 PACIFIC BELL 989-21]4 104091 O1/11/02 063960 PACIFIC HELL 489-9867 104092 O1/11/02 069194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 109092 O1/11/02 064194 PACIFIC GPS & ELECTRSC ELSCIRIC 104092 O1/11/02 064194 PACIFIC GAS S ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 104092 O1/11/02 064194 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 104092 O1/11/02 064194 PACIFIC GPS E ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 109092 O1/11/02 064194 PACIFIC GAS S ELECTRIC ELEC172IC 104093 O1/11/02 102'/'/'/ PHOTOGRAPHY 101 BATTSRIES/CAMEEtA HAG 104094 O1/11/02 066924 PLAQUE SHAQUE 2001 AWARD PLAQIIES/UPDATES 304095 O1/11/02 06]548 POOR RICHARD'S PRESS 2 COPIES-AG MON.CODE 104096 O1/11/02 1026']3 P[SLITZER STREET SWEEPING AD 104097 O1/11/02 10254] RIWH LEPSING COPIER PROPERTY TAX REIhID. 104098 O1/11/02 100938 SAFEWAY,INC. POULTRY/SNACKS-TURKEY TROT 104099 O1/11/02 0]]532 ALLEN SCHOFIELD ELECTAI INSTL.POW6R-YARD 104099 O1/11/02 0'/7532 ALLEN SCHOFIELD ELECTRI INSTL.CONDOIT HOX-ENG.BLDG 104100 O1/11/02 0'/8156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIB. GASOLINE 104100 O1/11/02 0']8156 SEBASTIAN OIL DISTRIH. GASOLINE 104101 01/11/02 080886 SO[TTNERN AUTO SUPPLY CR:SEAL BEAM 104101 O1/11/02 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY GREPSE GUN 109101 O1/11/02 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY GREASE/SILICONE 104101 O1/11/02 080886 SOUTHERN AUTO SUPPLY FUSES 104102 O1/11/02 OB2134 STATEWIDE SAFETY fi SIGN TAPE 104103 O1/11/02 082328 STERLING COhAtONICATIONS INSTL.MAP LIGHT 104103 O1/11/02 082328 STERLING CONP1[INICATIONS REPR.ALLEY LIGHT 104103 O1/11/02 082328 STERLING COnAfUNICATI0N5 R£PR.RADAR TRAILER ALARM 104103 O1/11/02 082328 STERLING COhAtONICATIONS REPL.ANTENNA 104103 O1/11/02 082328 STERLING COhAtONICATIONS FEB.SERVICE AGREEMENT 104104 O1/11/02 100]98 SUhA1IT UNIFORNS NAVY WOOL HATS 109105 O1/11/02 083382 SUPERIOR QOALITY COPIEA COPIER STAPLES 104105 O1/11/02 083382 S[1PERIOR QUALITY COPIER COPIER MAINT. ACCOUNL N[1MBER 010.4145.5403 010.9195.5403 010.4201.5403 010.4201.5903 010.9145.5403 010.4201.5403 010.4201.5403 010.4304.5402 640.4']12.5902 690.9'/11.5402 612.4610.5402 010.4145.5901 010.9304.5402 010.4201.5255 010.4201.5255 010.9002.5201 220.4303.5303 010.4421.5602 010.4424.5252 010.4213.5303 010.4213.5303 010.4201.5608 010.4201.5608 010.9211.5601 220.4303.5603 220.4303.5603 010.4201.5601 220.4303.5601 010.4201.5601 010.4201.5601 010.4201.5601 010.4201.5601 010.4201.5606 010.4201.5255 010.4201.5201 284.9103.5201 ITEM AMO[1NT 695.58 156.25 115.31 64.80 97.39 34.10 53.95 1,962.9] 663.44 2,2]1.95 1, 150. /B 6,806.63 14,912.39 44].26 156.22 131.26 92'1.50 141.25 303.80 210.00 245.00 892.89 944.2] 18.96- 5.13 9.03 2].89 20.33 115. 76 9.42 96.00 14.87 999.00 280.80 28.03 300.00 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 1,5'/1.45 2],767.91 44/.26 156.22 131.26 42'/.50 141.25 303.80 455.00 1,837.16 23.09 20.33 1,190.05 280.80 328.03 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE O1/OB/02 15:13 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR PERIOD 20 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NOhIDER DATE NUhIDER NAME DESCRIPTION NOMBER 104106 O1/11/02 084708 RICK TERBORCH CA.CHIEF CONF-TERBORCH 010.4201.5501 10910'/ O1/11/02 102244 TITAN INDOSTRIAL FIRST AID KITS-PATROL CARS 010.4201.5601 104108 O1/11/02 102650 TNR TECHNICPS.,INC LAPTOP BATTERY 010.4201.5607 104109 O1/11/02 086396 TROESH READY MIX CONCRETE 350.5632.7002 104110 O1/11/02 OB]242 OL1RA-CHEM, INC NAND CLEANER/DRAIN DEODORIZER 010.4920.5605 109111 O1/11/02 OB'/6]2 UNITED RENTALS RENTAL-RUBOTA TRACTOR 010.4430.5552 104111 O1/11/02 OB']fi72 UNITED RENTALS PUSHAROqNDS 010.9430.5552 104112 O1/11/02 101945 UNITED RENTALS,IN0.HWY ARROW SIGN/WET PAINT SIGN 220.4303.5613 104112 O1/ll/02 101945 ONITED RENTALS,INC.HWY EZ SANDBAG FILLER/PAINT 220.4303.5613 104113 O1/11/02 10200'] VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONES-PD 010.4201.5403 104113 O1/11/02 102007 VERI20N WIRELESS CELL PHONES-PD PATAOL CAF2S 010.4201.5403 104113 O1/11/02 10200'/ VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-WATER/SEWER/SNOP 612.9610.5403 104113 O1/11/02 10200'] VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-WATER/SEWER/SHOP 010.4305.5403 104113 O1/I1/02 10200'1 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE-WATER/SEWER/SHOP 010.4301.5903 104113 O1/11/02 10200] VERIZON WIRELE55 CELL PHONE-CHAVEZ 010.9930.5605 104113 O1/11/02 102007 VERIZON WIRELE55 CELL PHONE-P&R DIAECTOR 010.4421.5602 104113 O1/11/02 102009 VERI20N WIRELE55 CELL PRONE-PKS SUPER 010.4421.5602 104114 O1/11/02 090296 JOFIId WALLACE 6 A5500. GENERAL CONSULTING SVCS-NOV 010.4301.5303 109114 O1/11/02 090246 .]OHN WALLACE 6 ASSOG SEWBR CONNECTION FEE STUDY 350.5403.0301 104114 O1/11/02 090246 JOHN WALLAC& & ASSOC. CAEEKSIDE PATH,PHASE 11 350.560].7301 104114 O1/11/02 090246 JOFII�1 WALLACE S ASSOC. OAK PARR BLVD.WIDENING 350.5609.']301 109119 O1/11/02 090246 JOFIId WALLACE 4 ASSOG EL CAMPO/AT 101 PSR 350.5616.]301 109114 O1/11/02 090246 SOHN WALLACE fi ASSOC. RT 22'/ RELINQUISHMENT ST[1DY 350.5628.7701 104114 O1/11/02 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOC FAIR OAI(5/VLY RD.SIGNAL 350.5636.]301 104119 O1/11/02 090246 JOFIId WALLACE fi ASSOG SPRUCE STREET SIDEWALRS 350.5691 JSO1 109ll4 O1/11/02 090246 SOHN WALLACE fi ASSOC. PAULDING MIDDLE SCHOOL BIKEWAY 350.5643.7301 104114 O1/11/02 090296 JOFII�I WALLACE S ASSOC. TRAFFIC WAY HRIDGE AAIL REPL. 350.5644.]501 � 109119 O1/11/02 090246 JOFIId WALLACE & ASSOC. MARCH 2O01 STORM DAMAGE (RODEO 350.5699J501 104114 O1/11/02 090246 JOHN WALLACE fi ASSOC. GRAND AVE,PHFVSE 11 350.5812.7501 104119 O1/11/02 090296 JOFIN WALLACE & ASSOC. SEWER MASTER PLAN 350.5814.]]O1 104114 O1/11/02 090246 JOFP1 WALLACE & ASSOC. RESERVOIR ql DESIGN ' 350.5903 JSO1 104114 O1/11/02 090246 JOHN WALLACE & ASSOG CEDAR STREET SIDEWALKS 350.5646.]501 104115 O1/11/02 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/WIPER 010.9201.5601 109115 O1/11/02 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LOBE/OIL/FILTER/ALIGN/TIE ROD 010.4201.5601 104115 O1/11/02 090980 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/WIPERS 010.4201.5601 104115 O1/11/02 090480 WAYNE'S TIRE LUBE/OIL/FILTER/WIPERS 010.9201.5601 104116 O1/11/02 091026 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. CA.pENAL CODE PAM 010.4201.5255 10411"1 O1/11/02 102']']6 WORDS 'N PICTORES FORENSIC SIISPECT SKETCHES �10.4201.5255 PAGE 6 ITEM CHECK AMOUNT AMOUNT 1,120.50 1,120.50 350.69 350.69 86.83 86.83 498.35 998.35 239.31 239.31 816.99 32.23 849.22 109.15 ]9.02 188.1'] 320.98 229.10 4'].98 41./S 26.]9 24.84 19.53 15.69 3,]39.80 2B0.00 1,1'/].00 4,608.05 192.50 313.75 6,505.90 1]5.00 56.90 329.25 4/3.]5 187.50 1,442.30 8,975.6] 15/.50 /26.06 28,709.3] ss.3o 256.58 53.56 9'/.69 413.13 194.]4 194.94 164.19 164.19 TOTAL CHECKS 165,555.88 VOUCHRE2 O1/OB/02 15:13 FOND TITLE O10 21'/ 220 289 350 612 640 GENEHAL FUND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT SIREETS FUND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND CAYITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND SEWER FUND WATER FOND TOTAL CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE VWCHER/CHECK REGISTEA FOR PERIOD 20 n•/_ �(QIi�YY 99,040.09 225.00 2,289.'!2 802.8'/ 54,08'].97 1,'/53.03 ],357.20 165,555.88 PAGE 7 ATTACHMENT 4 FUND 010 FUND 220 FUND 284 FUND 612 FUND 640 237,374.60 13,378.01 5,137.37 7,070.39 10,714.11 273,674.48 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION PAY PERIOD 12/21/01 TO 1/03/02 01 /11 /02 5101 Salaries Full time 5102-03 Salaries Part-Time 5105-07 Salaries Over-Time 5108 Holiday Pay 5109 Sick Pay 5110 Annual Leave Pay 5111 Vacation Buyback 5112 Sick Leave Buyback 5113 Vacation Pay 5114 Comp Pay 5115 AnnualLeave Pay 5121 PERS Retirement 5122 Social Security 5123 PARS Retirement 5126 State Disability Ins. 5131 Health Insurance 5132 Dentallnsurance 5133 Vision Insurance 5134 Life Insurance 5135 Long Term Disability 5143 Uniform Allowance 5144 Car Allowance 5146 Council Expense 5147 Employee Assistance 5148 Boot Allowance 5149 Motor Pay TotaC 145, 302.28 22, 030.24 8,110.95 6,100.62 1,193.32 13,030.03 7,487.73 6,215.48 15,213.62 15,403.51 166.11 731.73 26,662.63 3,802.05 834.98 564.20 350.00 375.00 100.00 273,674.48 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL 8.b. FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES � SUBJECT: CASH FLOW ANALYSIS/APPROVAL OF INTERFUND ADVANCES FROM THE WATER FACILITY FUND DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: • Accept the November cash report, • Approve the interfund advance of $380,822 from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds as of November 30, 2001. FUNDING: No outside funding is required. Attachment A— Cash Balance/Interfund Advance Report ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CASH BALANCE/INTERFUND ADVANCE REPORT At Nrnember 3Q 2001 Fund O10 General Fund 210 Fire Protection Impact Fees 212 Police Protection Impact Fees 213 Park Development 214 Park Improvement 215 Recrealion Community Center 217 Landscapa I�faintenance 220 SVee[ (Gas Ta�c) Fund 222 Traffic Signalizalion 223 Tr�c CimulaGon 224 Transportation Facility Impact 225 Transporta[ion 226 Wa[er Neutralization Impact 230 ConstrucGon Tax 231 Drainage Facility 232 In-Lieu Affordable Housing 241 Lopez Facility Fund 250 CDBG Fund 271 State COPS Blcek Grant Fund 272 Calif. Law Enf: Technology Grant 274 Federal Universal Hiring Grant 277 98-99 Fed Local I,aw Enforcemen[ Grant 278 99-00 Fed Local Law Enforcement Gran[ 279 00-01 Fed Local Law Enforcement Gtant 284 Redevelopment Agency 285 Redevelopment Set Aside 350 Capital Projec[s , 612 SewerFund 634 Sewer Facility 640 Water Fund 641 Lopez 642 Water Faciliry 751 Downtown Parking 760 SanitaUon Dis[rict Fund Total City Wide Cash Balance at 11/30/Ol 813,505 69,081 9,912 429,653 35,116 2,031 27,665 161,060 500,896 462,988 1,826,140 13,125 280,798 198,712 16,929 369,169 701,621 (2,343) 102,115 62,541 (41,643) (106) 87 9,020 (91,265) 35,447 (245,465) 11,273 50,966 2,626,640 423,315 1,398,841 36,965 46,015 10,340,804 Recommended Advances 2,343 41,643 106 91,265 245,465 (380,822) 0 Tf� ABOVE LISTING ARE Tf� CASH BALANCES SHOWN IN Tf� GENERAL LEDGER OF TIIE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS OF NOVEMBER 3Q 2001 P ynda K. Snodgra� Director of Fina�icial Services Revised Balance 813,505 69,081 9,912 429,653 35,116 2,031 27,665 161,060 500,896 462,988 1,826,140 13,125 280,798 198,712 16,929 369,169 701,621 0 102,115 62,541 0 0 87 9,020 0 35,447 0 11,273 50,966 2,626,640 423,315 1,018,019 36,965 46,015 10,340,804 8.c. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES�/� SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (AB-1600) FEES DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept and file the attached report on the receipt and use of AB-1600 fees during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001. FUNDING: There is no fiscal impact from this action. DISCUSSION: Government Code Section 66000 et seq. requires local agencies to provide an accounting of fees charged for development projects. These fees (typically titled AB 1600 fees) are payments for future costs to the City as a result of current development. The basic accounting and reporting responsibilities require the City to provide a detailed reporting of the use of development fees every five years (beginning with FY 1997-98). The City complied with this five year reporting requirement in January 1999 and is therefore not required to report again until 2004. However, in an effort to provide ongoing financial information and disclosures, this report is provided as a yearly supplement. The City must comply with two basic requirements. First, the City must report findings on the amount collected for each fee, the use of the fees, and any unexpended portion at year-end. After the first report on collections and expenditures up to June 30, 1998, the City is required to report every five years thereafter. These findings must: 1. Identify the purpose for the fee; 2. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged; 3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements; 4. Designate the approximate dates on which these funding sources are expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. When sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing or public improvements are in progress but not completed, the City has 180 days to identify an REPORT ON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (AB1600) FEES PAGE 2 approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will begin or be completed. The second requirement provides that the City shall establish separate capital facility accounts for each improvement funded by project development fees. Interest shall be earned and recorded in each account. The City is required to make available to the public the following information: 1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account. 2. The amount of the fee. 3. The accounYs beginning and ending balance. 4. The amount of fees collected and the interest eamed. 5. A description of the improvements on which the funds were expended and the amount expended on each improvement including the percentage of the improvement funded with development fees. 6. An approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will begin if the City determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on the incomplete improvement. 7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account. 8. The amount of any refunds. Attached to this staff report is the required financial information as of June 30, 2001 (Attachments A-E). The information consists of beginning and ending fund balances for each fee charged by the City, including interest earned, and details of all expenditures made from these sources. The information in the Attachments agrees with the yearly audited financial records. There are seven active fees identified as subject to AB1600 reporting requirements. Three of the seven fees were reported in January 1999 complying with the five-year reporting requirement. Those three fees are the Tra�c Signalization Fees, the Transportation Facility Impact Fees, and the Drainage Facility Fees. The remaining four development fees are exempt from reporting at this time as they were established in recent years and are not required to report financial activity for the first five years of activity. The remaining four fees are the Fire Protection Fee, the Police Protection Fee, Recreation Community Center fees, and the Park Improvement fees. A one-page summary of financial activity for the four fees (Attachment E) is attached for information. The City utilized the following funds to track development impact fees: • Traffic Signalization Fund (Fund 222) Ordinance 346 was adopted in May of 1986 as a mechanism for assessing fees on new developments in proportion to the amount of anticipated traffic generated by a given development. The fees were restricted for funding the construction of traffic signal systems, signing, and other traffic control REPORT ON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (A61600) FEES PAGE 3 devices. This development impact fee came under Government Code Section 66000 in January 1989, when AB-1600 fees were recognized. Transportation Facility Impact (Fund 224) The fund was established in January 1994 to track fees paid by developers for the construction of improvements to streets throughout the City. When a project serves both new and existing development, only the portion related to new development is charged against this fund. Drainage Facility Fund (Fund 231) This fund was established in January 1986 to track fees collected from developers to acquire and construct drainage facilities with a designated drainage zone attributable to new development. This development fee came under Government Code Section 66000 in January 1989, when AB-1600 fees were recognized. As with the Transportation Facility Impact fees, when a project serves both new and existing development, only the portion related to new development is charged against this fund. • Fire Protection Fund (Fund 210) The Impact Fee Study of March 2000 instituted the Fire Protection Fee. This fee is to be used for facilities to house fire fighting personnel and equipment serving future development. This fee was established pursuant to AB-1600. Police Protection Fund (Fund 211) The Police Protection Fund was established in March 2000 to account for monies that were collected from new development for the expansion of police facilities. This fee was established pursuant to AB-1600. Park Improvement Fund (Fund 214) This impact fee resulted from the Impact Fee Study of March 2000. This fee is to be used to improve parklands in order to maintain a 4.0 acres of neighborhood and community parks per thousand residents. This fee was established pursuant to AB-1600; however, FY 2000-01 was the first year monies were collected for Park Improvement. Recreation Community Center Fund (Fund 215) The Impact Fee Study of March 2000 instituted the Recreation Community Center Fee. The fee was enacted to ensure that community center facilities will be maintained at 542 square feet per thousand population. The City utilizes fund accounting to segregate development related fees from other City revenues. Although the City pools its cash for investment purposes, interest income is allocated to each of the seven funds based on their respective cash balances. REPORT ON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (AB1600) FEES PAGE 4 Staff examined the accounts to determine if any development fees collected between January 1990 and June 30, 2001 remained unexpended. It was determined that all Drainage Facility Fees have been expended within the time period. However, sufficienl funds have been accumulated in the Traffic Signalization Fund for at least one tra�c signai. The Capital Improvement Program has included $161,600 for the construction of a traffic signal at Grand Avenue and Halcyon Road. In addition, approximately $1.7 million of impact fees have accumulated in the Transportation Facility Impact Fee Fund. Though the City has appropriated slightly more than $384,000 for capital projects in FY 001-02, during the next two years significant amounts should be used to improve City roads to meet the provisions of AB-1600. It is anticipated that the City will meet AB- 1600 provisions and no additional findings will be required. The remaining four funds, the Fire Protection Fund, the Police Protection Fund, the Park Improvement Fund, and the Recreation Community Center Fund have been in existence for less than five years and are not required to be expended. The attachments to this report are as follows: • Attachment A- Traffic Signalization Fund history for a ten year period from Fiscal Year 1991-92 through Fiscal Year 2000-01. • Attachment B— Eight year history for Fiscal Year 1993-94 through Fiscal Year 2000-01 for the Transportation Facility Impact Fund. • Attachment C- The Drainage Facility Fund history for a ten year period from Fiscal Year 1991-92 through Fiscal Year 2000-01. • Attachment D— This schedule, which is not required by the Government Code, summarizes the fees received and expended for the three funds since either the inception of the fund or the date AB-1600 became effective, January 1, 1989. This schedule demonstrates that the City is actively using the fees collected for the intended purposes. Attachment E— The revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for the four development fee funds not required to report findings this fiscal year. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for City Council consideration: - Approve staff recommendation; - Deny staff recommendation; - Modify staff recommendation and approve; - Provide direction to staff. Q H Z W � 2 U Q H Q N C W � o 2�W �m C N � � � d � N � c � � � � � � � '� LL Q , � `o c � OI C C Q � E W C � V « � W O L � U m � ~ � � T V a W � N y a � E O U � � N 11� C °�' �N a �a w o cn rn � O � � r � W � � N V �a � � � o n n o rn a °i Ti N � a � a N f� W °i 10 o rn v w � N m t �a w �� n N q � aC Oi N LL a w � � t M N p� �j 1� fh N LL a W � � N fD � rn � � � � LL a � � � a�D 1� ��+f O � � N � (`1 �a W t+f � � N Of N N N � O N O > Q (��` � N LL. 01 � f O�i l � Q V1 N OD !L � O O ao m u`�i m � o in u> v� � � � � m v v w N O C� 1� � a M �? M N N O � � N V�f a � � � n rn � � � N N 0 o to c N N � a � M � N f�D a�D V O R aD N � � M N � � rn v c n � ro <o o m QO I� O N N In tj7 W N N � n N N N GD N (V N N N � ( O t�0 rn � � N N f0 Oi N � M ( N O � M � N � m � � � � w pl 0 v y � � 1 d d O E O O � � d yyy � � c � � � y c d N � � , C � C O � � C y C y'V �Ol � � � O. >� �� j 0. C 01 C E m x �� x� m W c V a�i W d' � C' Q' W C ti ai ^ IL , 16 , �= � �� a c a o c y m m �i o r� �+ x c c �4 �� r� m m c m w � c a � w ii 'a �� O m m > H= � O w d U W c c � W (� LL ll � � � � � v o � � � i � � � m M O ' � T � w �, E m `oi „ � � , , , a N 'A w E m o' O O a � � o � � o E N N � w «, „ U N N O � � � � � � � � � o O N N N �A W l m � � � � � � � a V � � � U w m � � i � � �� j� O N 2 u� q D c d � � � � � � i � � > Q tA W c m � � � � � � � � � C � � f9 N U � « � � � i � i � � N U � � C N O � > N � tj` C t0 � O � � � y m � � G V � ` U � � N � 10 N c� �E � m m m E� �U � 'i� o Ty � J N b. C�� N m c � �i' ¢ a F'i�'�, '� EJQ'� 10 x � m °� ��' U U° O�O N a ° � � � � � � m � U v �'ma0�(�iiC7ii S: w { ~ L U � m F Z W � _ Q F"' F- Q �m � Q � I� C O } � W 01 2 �L ¢ W o ° � t0 � � f� N } Of � f�D 0�0 � lL a W N N V Ol � O N 1 I G� 7 N � (V }� � N � f'� �y a � W O�1 R � N n � � � � N � � n � m N } Q � lL y v � c o Oii�'�f �c °' � rn� � Q � N �� vi o a d a � E � m � � O � N C C �` '- � > > aD O OD � LL O C� �? O� O Q� C C N._ m Tj N N N O Ol d � Q'� E m w LL¢ �lr°:� w O �� V d y � � N (h Of N � ' � U V � N ( G�D V R N �� f0 a LL Y a E �i � � � fh � ^ N M N ? N 1� � � � i N N � O � n N � m � (O M (O O I� I� V W M � � � � � V N ^ M (O e � � � ^ M W f9 ` 19 R O f`7 M (p fD N O O 01 i � th R Of 1� N �n N f0 n � � N M � r � W W W 1 I R � i r i i � i i N f0 Oi C'� � C M �H N V � I� 1� C � � � � � W O a�0 W W � rn � � m � � � c� oi M co V �ff O N � � W N M O 1� aD O 0I � i i i i i N l N �n w m W r a0 O O� � � � � � � � M � w w 0 U � N N 4�'S O O i O�1 m O O � � � (O f0 fD f0 [L a � � � � � I � E a F'i o E w .. m � o m � 10 � � �U d °' � — E N � � � � ¢ � V U � G O O � N � � �� C O � m y m�� c > U 10 V a�i E a�i �' � d � c� 'c o m�n � C � N Vi � C 01 U C � f0 �� U � C� C a jN � �aC �j C �WT� f0 > x �10 V W l! �� C O � W C m N �� Q: J O C C K fA � � �U �� U N. Ol �— � N C O C C d O � C C '0 a V V C� N N O � N x � C� Vi C L r �7 � d y� V1 � p� C�� ~ C� U W ll �O. V j V. m m y� F- m d� �~ � W O W S U W ? � R LL LL U w � � K rn m � N � C N � c � � C N w � 10 a E . o � � � O � U �¢ � `s Z W ° v � 2 � � rn v V � N � � Q O v d � � f0 ¢ O! � �a � � m v c � � n�v } Q Ol t�1 IL y � � N M � � N d Y Q � IL � � c o �� (ppp O W N N �� 1� f��1 Z ao, o,� N�• Q N y A� Y Q � � y 7 l0 "� V! (�LL ym�.� Q� N C C �n Of .- � O lL O C� a� W O � � �. ' C O! � f0 � ory dv �Q Q c E c l! � � 'A r L OoyU� � v } m — � o fV f� t0 l0 v v M Cj � � Y Y � � n � m rn N N N � u�i N N rn � n P�) N � N N m � m �I I n v n i � i i i i i i i � » » ,s v n n � � i�� i� i i O O O � ' � w e9 ,g N o a p i i i i� i� i O O ' P] M O1 OI � � � u� � � � � � � � � ° rn o N N 1� ' th r � V/ M y N C] h V O if1 OD fO M N � m n N V Of � ' O r� �ff ^ � C) 1� O fV �n Of N � ' Oi ID �t th a0 h 1p � � y 0 N O a � f� ID ' o � �/1 N � � � m ' c m v_ v ao m ao o cu � � � � � � � �, � � �� O�i �j � a ^ N fV O�f O V W N } Q a LL LL � 4'f V! y) E 0 U N� �f N G W Y f�0_ � O � V � � � � � � � p� Y(O O O M N � � M } Q M LL d! e9 Vi H N O�1 th N N O�1 f�0_ t0 (O � O � q OD � i i i i i i�� p� a f� N N � m � � � } Q � M {L �y � V ^ f9 tA tl9 � � l�0 fA C Y ; A � W N N N N Q LL C � p 10 � O�o, oi a y� o Ec m�m N W w�� c Y wp o m o , A � � w — ,r� v H N .c °� 7 y � N a y a�i � 'rn a � � j?� t'i �� A a a� y a � d c �i c a�i W K� � o � W c m � T � v� � t� o°� °' .i�° ° �rn � � �� ° a�i c a o v w c c o a v o�' °� 01 rn a o E A '�: m a � � m �i Q' c � � m m a tA m� �° m m_ c m �o U �� y ~ c m c d i W u. n c�i j� v v � o 0 o Y ��° a�i W 1O a o ;o � d uS dci uS � � a �nv�omSoa oz � � x � li li U d' W G H Z W � 2 a � � a a 7 U c d a W '� O� � � d � � O� � N � LL Q � E O a O > V O `o Z m E E 7 � � w W LL Z O F n� Q Z � N U LL � H d � LL � g � � N > � N > .� � � E � U > .� 7 � E LL E � U � d° 3e 2Q 3e de 3 3E 3E 3e 3E 3E � 1� i0 N V Y a h� N N M c�n�ncnt�v�rnmMU�rn- co �.� o r �� w v ao m n^ � Y� N N O1 O1 Y) M f0 � t N a�0 a0 � r W N t�+l t� f0 !O M O f�1 M M C� f�7 M CO 00 OD 0/ � rn�� N f�0 f�0 � t�0 � t�0 � O�1 O! O f �� nnocou�rvr�v.-vao W OD 0/ I� I� N M h lh • H7 O W O Of Y Y Ol O • � � 1� a0 Oi 1� fV aD �p N 1 c0 a0 O1 �� ^� t0 Of CO O � v v u� th � C7 M t0 O> N I� N f� 1� N C .- H a0 N O� N aD t� � t�l w W � a0 N a0 f0 sf aO N aD 1� < O� �ff y�o v ri ui o�o m r ac �i vi ao /Ll d M N v.- N N V N N ; � (V � � M N O O � � ro � � � � � � o o rn � N fV N O� t0 V M fD Of N 1� 01 1� 1� t0 N N O� N a0 h O V� O N y f� N � f0 sF a0 N oD Oi �T O� h d y N N � N N�� N N� LL — N � O U N 01 O N M� M1 tp 1� op Ol O W�' oD O� 0/ Of 01 W O� 01 Of T 01 O O } y Oi Of 01 Of � Ol W� Of � 01 N N V � � � LL � LL � LL LL � � � LL i � N U c �a c w 0 � � y �' 'o � .; m C � � C � N � a ° a c E w C a f0 c U 'rn � � o 0 rn o � � LL � � � � � C N � C d . � L � .; C C N y N � C �� c � � U � f� N .. D O � ; GI y L Y H ♦ � F- Z W � S a F Q N � .�-� C n W '� 2� � � N � � Oo � N a� C� Q � E � � > V O `o r m E E � y � w W LL U a � ~ J Q � Z � a �. a � � H N IL 'C C d > O d > W � E � � U 3Q e`� 3e 3e 2E o � Y N � N 1� aD Y 1� h ao aD O N Hf N t0 e- O a CO O f� N I� W 01 P I� a0 N � M N W i�0 M� a�0 �v_vv� � � � O O O O r N ' ' O� w Of O� N f� f0 t0 l0 f0 .- N N N N N O� H � � N f N O� 1�+1 r O '� �nrmw��000 y N O af Of N Y7 V � y.- e� �n Of 10 M N E �y � Y N I� U � � � � V P7 N M O N OD M u1 " c� v v� w v oo N r� n ) C N N ao W a0 O� Of V N ;�i d N^ N V N N �(1 N OD � � f0 i� N� u7 N ? > LL ^ .- .- � � w vs � o N n rn o � v� v� � rn• � in v n c a e` n e� e Y r N N � N d � O U N d d � p U c0 07 M O N� O Y a� V OO Y M N O Ol a0 Ol � Oi O ^� V N N aC f0 N t0 f� I� t0 a0 N c- � � e � N f0 1� OD Ol O � rnrnairnrnrnoo rn�� rn rn rn o 0 �' � N N LL LL� LL LL� LL� � 0 �n � c _ � � W � c � � E 0 � 'C � C 0 E � N G N d a � M N N LL N C � d > O d > .� 7 � E � U > . 7 � � � E � U � � > O N N LL �� O O 01 � O Pl (p N Of O a Y7 N I� M M O� N N�- � N c0 N N � N N7 M N � � � � N 1� aD Y a'�O 01 N a0 Y� N O QO P N � V Ol � f� h 1� 00 a�+l f0 N�- N t0 fD Y f� a0 N �n r w�� r� o o v �� O a0 a0 OD a0 O O e- O O a0 �ff Y] i(I N Of W Of T � ' ' C? �< a Y N N N N � M 1`� (+1 M fV N N 01 W M �O t0 10 t0 � N O O O N M M M N i� N . O e � O! � N f0 O a0 O V M t0 � M N n O P Y V 1� N I� ^ t0 � P W N N N a0 � N N i(f f� ao O> W O f0 1A h /0 Of e� f0 � � N rnrn�o�ov�n�u�rNrn � ro 01 Of � oD �n O� aD N � N N � f0 {O OD � N N Ol c7 v f0 �.. . � .�... Ci . , � � � � � � � � m o o � c�nin mroa�o� f0 v1 N N t0 � st T Y� a0 � O1 a0 1� O 10 N O� V N a0 O! �(f V a0 V1 N h 1� O� fV � V sf a0 � N t0 Oi Oi N M N T O � N M 7 N t0 f� 00 O> O �� ao rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 } d Of Of T�� T�� Of N N V LL LL� LL�� LL LL� LL LL� LL O n � � m c E Q C C W � �i m C N N 3 O � Q � 0 a N R � � o E 'v, o• � Q W a � W fO a m � a C « w Qa w N 'C C w � a 1Q m 3 � '� N � � N. �O E N � F � « W H 2 W � 2 Q f H Q � � v c W �' Z � C v N d m C � pLL; �o �' m�� o � E .°. � iv � o E w € �LN°'�� > W V W N a E 0 U E � � � �� d Q LL N N a E w c � � � `m v�i `� u�i W ° - - p> E c � � doU � U � � M � a � W O N N C Q � 1� I� a�'i � a vi 0 a` � O O O O a � 7 f7 l7 LL a � 1�f1 M � o � v v ao C O � N � N N � a � Q a �o ^ ^ � � � �o m � � � l� a � v � � N v � � n ' N � n ' I MI ' rn � M N � � � 0 � � n � � N N � � � � � v rn M N �+1 tp n r� w CO M � .- r ao � � � Y7 ^ 1� � n r� � �o � �o � � m � � R } a> a� N w Q 0 � N � N N y � N 7� C } � y j N 0 �� Ol �C � � C C y y /Lj C � C C O N E p � X N� p� v� N ax � m W N U Gl W Q� ••• C C � W C N C d' in O) `� � '� L� w � LL N N LL � L C � C C H yO�� C C N � N O ..�. ! N �x C r N, ul C L t0 N � a°> ~ c G c�x W IL 'G c� .�. � m m > E � p,0 lL t U w c c � W � IL li S.d. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES� SUBJECT: ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OFIMPACT FEES DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the annual adjustment to the City's Impact Fees. FUNDING: The adoption of the attached Resolution will increase the Impact Fees charged for new development projects in 2002. The revenue generated from this increase is dependent on the amount of new development in the community during the coming year. DISCUSSION: In order that Impact Fees remain current with inflation, Section 3.36.040 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code states that the fees shall be adopted by resolution and shall be adjusted each January by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The calculation specified in Section 3.36.040 adjusts the fees as follows: Factor = 1+ Current Index —Base Index For Date of Adootion Base Index For Date of Ado�tion The calculation is as follows: 1.0675 = 1 + 6390 - 5986 5986 The 1.0675 factor is multiplied by the adopted March 2000 Impact Fees as shown on Exhibit A of the attached resolution. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADJUSTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BY THE CHANGE IN THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.36.040 of the Municipal Code, Development Impact Fees are to be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in conformance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the fees and fee schedules set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days after its adoption per Government Code Section 66017. On motion of Council Member seconded by Council Member and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2002. RESOLUTION NO. PAG E 2 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT "A" Definitions: Develoament Tvoes —Residential and commercial development divided into sub- categories. Units of Develooment — A standard measure of the cost to provide services. The acre is the fundamental unit measure, which is divided into a smaller component, the dwelling unit (DU). Asset Cost Per Acre — The calculated cost to provide additional services/facilities to new development. Calis Per Unit — The number of yearly additional police calls generated by new development. Facilitv Cost Per Call — The cost per call to expand current police facilities to accommodate new development. Persons Per Unit — The number of persons expected to reside in the unit of development. Costs Per Capita — The cost of new or additions to the current community center, on a per person basis, to maintain the current level of service of recreation facilities. Impact Fee Per Unit — The fee to be levied per unit of development in order to recover future cost of new or expanded facilities. (a) Fire Protection Fees: A person seeking to construct a residential or non-residential development project shall pay a fire protection fee of $1,293.46 per acre. Acres per dwelling unit are determined based upon the following schedule. IMPACT FEES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT FIItE PROTECTION Land Use Categories Asset Cost Pe� Acre = $1,293.46 Units of Acres Development Per Unit RESIDENTTAL (per dwelling unit) Residential - Estate Rural Residential (average 1-2 DU acre) Single Family Detached (average 3-6 DU/acre) Second Residential Unit Multi-family (Condominium) Multi-family (Apartments) Mobile Home (Family) Mobile Home (Adults only) Retirement Community Congregate Care Facility GOVERNMENT Civic Center Rost O�ce Community Department of Motor Vehicles OFFICE Standard Commercial Office Office Park Single Tenant Office Corporate Headquarters Medical-Dental O�ce INDUSTRIAL IndustriaUBusiness Park Industrial Park (no commercial) Manufacturing/Assembly Warehousing Storage Science Research & Development SHOPPING CENTERS Super Regional (>60 acres) Regional (30-60 acres) Community (10-30 acres) Neighborhood (<10 acres) Acre DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre 2.50 1.00 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.09 032 032 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Impact Fee Per Unit 3,233.64 1,293.46 413.91 413.91 116.41 116.41 413.91 413.91 116.41 116.41 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 Land Use Cate�ories Asset Cost Per Acre = $1,293.46 COMMERCLAL SHOPS Specialty RetaiUStrip Commercial Electronics Superstore Factory Outlet Supermarket Drugstore Convenience Mazket (15-16 hours) Convenience Market (24 hours) Convenience Market (w/gasoline pumps) Discount Club Discount Store Furniture Store Lumber Store Home Improvement Superstore Hardware/Paint Store Garden Nursery RESTAURANTS Fast Food Sit Down FINANCIAL SERVICES Bank/Savings and Loan OTHER LAND USES Church General Hospital Convalescent/Nursing Bus depot RECREATIONAL Bowling Center Campground Golf Driving Range Movie Theater Multi-purpose (miniature golf, video arcades, batting cages, etc.) Health Club Tennis Court Sports Facility Units of Development Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acres Per Unit 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acre 1.00 Acre 1.00 Acre 1.00 Acre Acre Acre Acre 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Impact Fee Per Unit 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 Land Use Categories Asset Cost Per Acre = $1,293.46 AUTOMOBILE Caz Wash Gas Station Sales (Dealer & Repair) Auto Repair Center Auto Parts Sales Quick Lube Tire Store CEMETERY (acre) EDUCATION PUBLIC OR PRIVATE University - 4years (acre) Junior College High School Middle/Junior High Elementary Day Care Center (per child) Library LODGING Hotel (w/convention facilities/restaurant) Motel Resort Hotel Bed and Breakfast Units of Development Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acres Per Unit 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Impact Fee Per Unit 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 (b) Police Facilities Fees: 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 1,293.46 A person seeking to construct a residential or non-residential development project shall pay a police facilities fee of $107.98 per call for service projected to be generated by such development project. Projected calls for service are based upon the following schedule. IMPACT FEES PER UHIT OF DEVELOPMENT POLICE FACILITIES FEES Land Use Cate o�ries_ Facility Cost Per Call = $107.98 RESIDENTIAL (per dwelling unit) Residential - Estate Rural Residential (average 1-2 DU acre) Single Family Detached (average 3-6 DU/acre) Second Residential Unit Multi-family (Condominium) Multi-family (Apartments) Mobile Home (Family) Mobile Home (Adults only) Retirement Community Congregate Caze Facility GOVERNMENT (per acre) Civic Center Post Of�'ice Community Department of Motor Vehicles OFFICE (per acre) Standard Commercial Of�ice Office Park Single Tenant Of�'ice Corporate Headquarters Medical-Dental Office INDUSTRIAL (per acre) IndustriaUBusiness Park Industrial Park (no commercial) Manufacturing/Assembly Warehousing Storage Science Research & Development SHOPPING CENTERS (per acre) Super Regional (>60 acres) Regional (30-60 acres) Community (10-30 acres) Neighborhood (<10 acres) Calls Per Unit 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.75 132 132 0.75 0.75 132 132 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 �� .: 1 .: � .: .: 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 Police Facilities Fees ($1 26.99 26.99 80.98 80.98 142.53 142.53 80.98 80.98 142.53 142.53 133.89 133.89 133.89 133.89 133.89 133.89 133.89 133.89 133.89 73.42 73.42 73.42 73.42 73.42 73.42 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 Land Use Cate�ories Facility Cost Per Call = $107.98 COMMERCTAL SHOPS (per acre) Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial Electronics Superstore Factory Outlet Supermarket Drugstore Convenience Market (15-16 hours) Convenience Market (24 hours) Convenience Market (w/gasoline pumps) Discount Club Discount Store Furniture Store Lumber Store Home Improvement Superstore Hardware/Paint Store Garden Nursery RESTAURANTS (per acre) Fast Food Sit Down FINANCIAL SERVICES (per acre) Bank/Savings and Loan OTHER LAND USES (per acre) Church General Hospital Convalescent/Nursing Bus depot RECREATIONAL (per acre) Bowling Center Campground Golf Driving Range Movie Theater Multi-purpose (miniature golf, video arcades, batting cages, etc.) Health Club Tennis Court Sports Facility Calls Per Unit 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 132 .68 41.48 41.48 41.48 .68 .68 Police Facilities _Fees ($) 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,47891 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,47891 , 4,478.91 4,478.91 142.53 73.42 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 73.42 73.42 _._ Calls Police Facilities Land Use Categories Per Unit Fees ($1 Facility Cost Per Call = $107.98 AUTOMOBII.E (per acre) Caz Wash Gas Station Sales (Dealer & Repair) Auto Repair Center Auto Parts Sales Quick Lube Tire Store 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 4,478.91 4,47891 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 CEMETERY (per acre) EDUCATION PUBLIC OR PRIVATE University - 4years (acre) 7unior College High School Middle/Junior High Elementary Day Care Center (per child) Library LODGING Hotel (w/convention facilities/restaurant) Motel Resort Hotel Bed and Breakfast (c) Community Center Fees: � 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 41.48 73.42 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 4,478.91 A person seeking to construct a residential de4elopment project shall pay a community center fee of $35.45 per new resident generated by such development project. The number of new residents is based upon the following schedule of estimated persons per dwelling unit. IMPACT FEES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUIVITY CENTER FEES Land Use Categories Facility Costs Per Capita = $35.45 AGRICULTURE (per acre) RESIDENTIAL (per dwelling unit) Residential - Estate Rural Residential (average 1-2 DU acre) Single Family Detached (average 3-6 DU/acre) Second Residential Unit Multi-family (Condominium) Multi-family (Apartments) Mobile Home (Family) Mobile Home (Adults only) Retirement Community Congregate Care Facility (d) Park Improvement Fees: Persons Per Unit � 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.00 2.00 2.80 2.80 2.00 2.00 99.26 99.26 99.26 99.26 99.26 70.90 70.90 99.26 99.26 70.90 70.90 A person seeking to construct a residential development project shall pay a park improvement fee of $611.76 per new resident generated by such development project. The number of new residents is based upon the following schedule of estimated persons per dwelling unit. IMPACT FEES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT PARK IMPROVEMENT FEES Land Use Categories Costs Per Capita = $611.76 RESIDENTIAL (per dwelling unit) Residential - Estate Rural Residential (average 1-2 DU acre) Single Family Detached (average 3-6 DU/acre) Second Residential Unit Multi-family (Condominium) Multi-family (Apartments) Mobile Home (Family) Persons Per Unit 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.00 2.00 2.80 Community Center _Fees ($) Community Center _Fees $ 1,712.94 1,712.94 1,712.94 1,712.94 1,223.53 1,223.53 1,712.94 Persons Community Center Land Use Categories Per Unit Fees ($) Costs Per Capita = $611.76 Mobile Home (Adults only) Retirement Community Congregate Care Facility (e) Water Facility Fees: 2.80 2.00 2.00 1,712.94 1,223.53 1,223.53 A person seeking to construct a residential or non-residential development project shall pay a water facility fee based upon the water meter size installed. The fee amount shall be determined according to the following schedule. IMPACT FEES BASED ON METER SIZE WATER FACILITY FEES Meter Size 5/8 inch —'/a inch 1 inch 1'/z inch 2 inch 3 inch 4 inch 6 inch (f) Traffic Signalization Fees: I�act Fee ($1 672.53 1,120.%8 2,241.75 3,586.80 6,725.25 11,208.75 22,428.18 A person seeking to construct a residential or non-residential development project shall pay a traffic signalization fee of $475.64 per peak hour trip generated by such cJevelopment project. To determine peak hour trips generated by a development project, the City Engineer, or his/her designee, will refer first to the schedule of peak hour trips and traffic fees for specific residential and non-residential uses set forth below. If the specific proposed use is not identified on this schedule, the City Engineer, or his/her designee, will refer to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) most recent "(Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region." If the peak hour data is absent from both of these schedules, the applicant may be required to submit a tra�c study or other factual data which demonstrates the traffic impacts of the proposed development project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PEAK-HOUR-TRIPS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION FEES FOR SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES Land Use Categories 1 Peak hour trip = $475.64 Highest AM or PM Peak hour trips RESIDENTIAL (per dwelling unit) Rural Residential (average 1-2 DU acre) Single Family Detached (average 3-6 DU/acre) Second Residential Unit Multi-family (Condominium) Multi-family (Apartments) Mobile Home (Family) Mobile Home (Adults only) Retirement Community Congregate Care Facility GOVERNMENT (per thousand square feet) Civic Center Post Of�'ice CentraUWalk-in only Community (not including mail drop lane) Community (w/mail drop lane) Mail drop lane only Department of Motor Vehicles OFFICE (per thousand square feet) Standard Commercial Office Office Park Single Tenant Office Corporate Headquarters Medical-Dental Of�'ice INDUSTRIAL (per thousand square feet) IndustriaVBusiness Park Industrial Park (no commercial) Manufacturing/Assembly Warehousing Storage Science Research & Development 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.54 0.55 030 0.28 0.16 c .� 6.30 18.00 30.00 180.00 18.00 2.80 1.56 2.10 1.19 5.50 1.92 0.84 0.80 0.75 0.18 1.28 SHOPPING CENTERS (per thousand square feet) Super Regional (>60 acres) 3.60 Regional (30-60 acres) 4.50 Traffic Fees 570.76 475.64 475.64 380.51 256.84 261.60 142.69 133.18 76.10 1,71229 2,996.50 8,561.44 14,269.06 85,61435 8,561.44 1,331.78 741.99 998.83 566.01, 2,615.99 913.22 399.53 380.51 356.73 85.61 608.81 1,712.29 2,14036 Highest AM or PM Land Use Cate$ories Peak hour trips 1 Peak hour trip = $475.64 Community (10-30 acres) 7.00 Neighborhood (<10 acres) 12.00 CONIMERCIAL SHOPS (per thousand squaze feet) Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial 3.60 Electronics Superstore 5.00 Factory Outlet 3.60 Supermarket 15.00 Drugstore 9.00 Convenience Market (IS-16 hours) 40.00 Convenience Mazket (24 hours) 63.00 Convenience Mazket (w/gasoline pumps) 59.50 Discount Club 5.40 Discount Store 4.80 Fumiture Store 0.54 Lumber Store 2.70 Home Improvement Superstore 3.20 Hardwaze/Paint Store 5.40 Garden Nursery 4.00 RESTAURANTS (per thousand square feet) Fast Food (with drive through) 45.50 Fast Food (without drive through) 49.00 Sit Down, High Turnover 12.80 Sit Down, Low Turnover (quality) 8.00 FINANCIAL SERVICES (per thousand square feet) Bank/Savings and Loan (walk-in only) 12.00 Bank/Savings and Loan (with drive-through) 20.00 OTHER LAND USES (per thousand square feet unless otherwise noted) Church (rates x 4 for Sunday or days of Assembly) 0.72 General Hospital (per bed) 1.70 Convalescent/Nursing (per bed) 0.21 Bus depot 25.00 RECREATIONAL (per thousand square feet unless otherwise noted) Bowling Center 3.30 Campground 0.32 Golf Driving Range 6.30 Movie Theater (per seat) 0.14 TratFic Fees 3,329.45 5,707.62 1,712.29 2,378.18 1,712.29 7,134.53 4,280.72 19,025.41 29,965.02 28,30030 2,568.43 2,283.05 256.84 1,28422 1,522.03 2,568.43 1,902.54 21,641.41 23,306.13 6,088.13 3,805.08 5,707.62 9,512.71 342.46 808.58 99.88 11,890.88 1,569.60 152.20 2,996.50 66.59 Highest AM or PM Traffic Land Use Categories Peak hourtrips Fees 1 Peak hour trip = $475.64 Multi-purpose (miniature golf, video azcades, batting cages, etc.) 5.40 Health Club 2.70 Tennis Court 1.76 Sports Facility - outdoor stadium (acre) 50.00 Sports Facility - indoor arena (acre) 30.00 AUTOMOBILE (per thousand squaze feet unless otherwise noted Caz Wash Automatic 81.00 Self-serve 8.00 Gas Station 13.95 With/Food Mart/Car wash (per pump) Sales (Dealer & Repair) 4.00 Auto Repair Center 2.22 Auto Parts Sales 6.00 Quick Lube 4.00 Tire Store 2.75 CEMETERY (acre) 5.00 2,568.43 1,284.22 837.12 23,781.77 14,269.06 38,526.46 3,805.08 6,635.11 1,902.54 1,055.91 2,853.81 1,902.54 1,308.00 2,378.18 EDUCATION PUBLIC OR PRIVATE (per thousand square feet unless otherwise noted) University - 4years (acre) 10.00 4,75635 7unior College 2.16 1,02737 High School 3.12 1,483.98 Middle/Junior High 3.60 1,712.29 Elementary 3.92 1,864.49 Day Care Center (per child) 0.90 428.07 Library 5.00 2,378.18 LODGING (per room) Hotel (w/convention facilities/restaurant) 0.80 Motel 0.81 ResoR Hotel 0.56 Bed and Breakfast 0.28 380.51 385.26 266.36 133.18 *Land Use Categories identified in this schedule are primarily based upon "San Diego Traffic Generators". Other sources used include the "Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual". If there is a question about the type of use, the City Engineer will refer to this manual for additional clazification. Peak hour trips based on square feet unless otherwise stated. _ _ (g) Transportation Facilities Fees: A person seeking to construct a residential or non-residential development project shall pay a transportation facilities fee of $1,298.30 per peak hour trip generated by such development project. To determine peak hour trips generated by a development project, the City Engineer, or his/her designee, will refer first to the schedule of peak hour trips and traffic fees for specific residential and non-residential uses set forth below. If the specific proposed use is not identified on this schedule, the City Engineer, or his/her designee, will refer to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) most recent "(Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region." If the peak hour data is absent from both of these schedules, the applicant may be required to submit a tra�c study or other factual data which demonstrates the tra�c impacts of the proposed development project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PEAK-HOUR-TRIPS AND TRAFFIC FEES FOR SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENT7AL USES Land Use Categories 1 Peak hour trip = $1,29830 Highest AM or PM Peak hourtrips RESIDEN'f7AL (per dwelling unit) Rural Residential (average 1-2 DU acre) Single Family Detached (average 3-6 DU/acre) Second Residential Unit Multi-family (Condominium) Multi-family (Apartments) Mobile Home (Family) Mobile Aome (Adults only) Retirement Community Congregate Care Facility GOVERNMENT (per thousand square feet) Civic Center Post Office 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.54 0.55 0.30 0.28 0.16 3.60 CentraUWalk-in only 630 Community (not including mail drop lane) 18.00 Community (w/mail drop lane) 30.00 Mail drop lane only 180.00 Department ofMotor Vehicles 18.00 OFFICE (per thousand square feet) Standard Commercial Office 2.80 Office Park 1.56 Tra�c Fees $ 1,557.97 1,29830 1,298.30 1,038.64 701.08 714.07 389.49 363.53 207.73 4,673.90 8,17932 23,369.48 38,949.13 233,694.75 23,369.48 3,63525 2,02535 Highest AM or PM Land Use Cate o�ries_ Peak hour trips 1 Peak hour trip = $1,29830 Single Tenant Office 2.10 Corporate Headquarters 1.19 Medical-Dental Office 5.50 INDUSTRIAL (per thousand square feet) IndustriaVBusiness Park 1.92 Industrial Park (no commercial) 0.84 Manufacturing/Assembly 0.80 Warehousing 0.75 Storage 0.18 Science Research & Development 1.28 SHOPPING CENTERS (per thousand square feet) Super Regional (>60 acres) 3.60 Regional (30-60 acres) 4.50 Community (10-30 acres) 7.00 Neighborhood (<10 acres) 12.00 CONIMERCIAL SHOPS (per thousand square feet) Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial 3.60 Electronics Superstore 5.00 Factory Outlet 3.60 Supermarket 15.00 Drugstore 9.00 Convenience Market (15-16 hours) 40.00 Convenience Market (24 hours) 63.00 Convenience Market (w/gasoline pumps) 59.50 Discount Club 5.40 Discount Store 4.80 Furniture Store 0.54 Lumber Store 2.70 Home Improvement Superstore 320 Hardware/Paint Store 5.40 Garden Nursery 4.00 RESTAURANTS (per thousand square feet) Fast Food (with drive through) 45.50 Fast Food (without drive through) 49.00 Sit Down, FIigh Turnover 12.80 Sit Down, Low Turnover (quality) 8.00 Traffic Fees $ 2,726.44 1,544.98 7,140.67 2,492.74 1,090.58 1,038.64 973.73 233.69 1,661.83 4,673.90 5,84237 9,08813 15,579.65 4,673.90 6,491.52 4,673.90 19,474.56 11,684.74 51,932.17 81,793.16 77,249.10 7,010.84, 6,231.86 701.08 3,505.42 4,154.57 7,010.84 5,193.22 59,072.84 63,616.90 16,618.29 1Q386.43 Highest AM or PM Land Use Categories Peak hour trips 1 Peak hour trip = $1,29830 FINANCIAL SERVICES (per thousand square feet) Bank/Savings and Loan (walk-in only) 12.00 Bank/Savings and Loan (with drive-through) 20.00 OTHER LAND USES (per thousand square feet unless otherwise noted) Church (rates x 4 for Sunday or days of Assembly) 0.72 934.78 General Hospital (per bed) 1.70 2,207.12 Convalescent/Nursing (per bed) 0.21 272.64 Bus depot 25.00 32,457.60 RECREATIONAL (per thousand square feet unless otherwise noted) Bowling Center 3.30 Campground Golf Driving Range Movie Theater (per seat) Multi-purpose (miniature golf, video arcades, batting cages, etc.) Health Club Tennis Court Sports Facility - outdoor stadium (acre) SpoRs Facility - indoor arena (acre) 0.32 6.30 0.14 5.40 2.70 1.76 50.00 30.00 Traffic Fees $ 15,579.65 25,966.08 4,284.40 415.46 8,179.32 181.76 7,010.84 3,505.42 2,285.02 64,915.21 38,949.13 AUTOMOBILE (per thousand square feet unless otherwise noted Car Wash Automatic Self-serve Gas Station With/Food Mart/Car wash (per pump) Sales (Dealer & Repair) Auto Repair Center ?.uto Parts Sales Quick Lube Tire Store 81.00 8.00 13.95 4.00 2.22 6.00 4.00 2.75 105,162.64 10,386.43 18,11134 5,193.22 2,882.24 7,789.83 5,193.22 3,570.34 CEMETERY (acre) 5.00 6,491.52 EDUCATION PUBLIC OR PRIVATE (per thousand square feet unless otherwise noted) University - 4years (acre) 10.00 12,983.04 Junior College 2.16 2,80434 High School 3.12 4,050.71 Middle/Junior High 3.60 4,673.90 Highest AM or PM Traf�ic Land Use Cate�ories Peak hourtrips Fees 1 Peak hour trip = $1,29830 Elementary Day Care Center (per child) Library 3.92 0.90 5.00 5,089.35 1,168.47 6,491.52 LODGING (per room) Hotel (w/convention facilities/restaurant) Motel Resort Hotel Bed and Breakfast 0.80 0.81 0.56 0.28 1,038.64 1,051.63 727.05 363.53 *Land Use Categories identified in this schedule aze primarily based upon "San Diego Tra�c Generators". Other sources used include the "Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual". If there is a question about the type of use, the City Engineer will refer to this manual for additional clarification. Peak hour trips based on square feet unless otherwise stated. S.e. � ��. u # ,�nr ,o. ,a c4 ��FOR� TO: * CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: LYNDA K. SNODGRASS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES � SUBJECT: IN-LIEU FEE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING ADJUSTMENT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving an adjustment to the in-lieu fees for off-street parking in the Parking and Business Improvement area of the Village. FUNDING: The adoption of the attached Resolution is not expected to materially affect the revenues received in the Downtown Parking Fund. DISCUSSION: Ordinance 489 C.S. established the option of payment of an in-lieu fee for off- street parking spaces in the Parking and Business Improvement Area of the Village. The Ordinance further specified that the in-lieu fee shall be adjusted each December 31 � according to the corresponding annual increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR). The calculation has been completed for the December 31, 2001 adjustment. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 489 C.S. an adjustment is warranted. The calculation shown below provides documentation that a 1.70% increase in the ENR warrants an increase in the in-lieu fees to $3,822 from $3,758. Overall Index ENR at December 2001 ENR at December 2000 Change Percentlncrease Warranted Chanae in Fee Current Fee 1.70°k Increase Updated Fee Financial Svcs: Finance Issues: Parking In-Lieu ENR Index 6390 6283 107 107/6283 = 1.70% $3, 758 64 82 RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADJUSTING IN-LIEU FEE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE VILLAGE BY THE CHANGE IN THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 489 C.S. establishing the option of payment of an in-lieu fee for off-street parking spaces in the Parking and Business Improvement Area of the Village (hereinafter referred to as the "Village Improvement Area") and provides for an annual adjustment in the fee based on changes in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the fee set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days after its adoption per Government Code Section 66017. On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council. Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,2002. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT "A" The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be $3,822 per parking space. 8.g. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES � SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM AGAINST CITY — D. CASHIER DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council reject the attached Claim for Damages against the City filed by Daniel Cashier, 48 Whitecap Street, Pismo Beach. FUNDING: None. DISCUSSION: The City's insurance administrators have reviewed the claim of Daniel Cashier and recommend it be rejected. f;ci:[':"� - •" '� , 0' -- Next Report Due: January 30, 2002 02 J'�;J -t� i:;i 10� 57 STATUS REPORT #2 December 28, 2001 City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Attention: Steven Adams, City Administrator RE: My Principal : City of Arroyo Grande DOI . 9/15/Ol Claimant . Daniel Cashier My File No. : A10517-5 Dear NIr. Adams: PREVIEW: The claimanf alleges his vehicle was damaged by lazge flowerpot. REPLY REQUEST: GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS Action By Public Entiri: I recommend that the City fonvard a standazd rejection letter to the following claimant: Daniel Cashier 48 Whitecap St Pismo Beach CA 93429 Please forward a copy of this rejection letter to this office for our file. A. Statute Of Limitations: The statute of limitations will expire six months from the rejection. CARL WARREN & CO. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT • CLAIMS ADJUSTERS P.O. Box 1052 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1052 Phone: (805) 544-7963 • Fax: (805) 544-1 O68 City of Arroyo Grande Steven Adazns December 28, 2001 Paee Two (A10517-S1 CITY REPORT The city provided a memo indicating that Village Improvement Association maintains the flowerpot in question. The City only waters the plants. There were no records of work or repair orders for this location. LIABILITY The City of Arroyo Grande is not responsible far this loss. The claimant's failure to properly operate his vehicle is the primary cause of this incident. The claimant struck a stationary object. The location and maintenance of the flowerpot is secondary. The City of P,rroyo Grande is not negligent. CLAIM STATUS: Claim Status Reserves LPD- Cashier, Daniel COMMENT: Open $800.00 Loss $500.00 Expense I am placing my file on diary for January 30, 2002 awaiting receipt of requested copy of the rejection letter. V ery truly yows, Carl arren & Company Keith Swanson, LPCS, CCLA _ __ t' Cc�,�A (,tJ��-�. P�� Clly ot Arroyo Grande CLAIM FOR DAMA(iES TO PERSON OR PROPEHTY File vith: '� �, I I'� � � CITY CLSAR'3 OFPICE 214 Eest Brnnch Streat � Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ;�• �;rF�r,.l;�'r��? ._.. . C1eimVN FOR FILI ,�NC�'sm�,xp r� I I F1�1 2� 05 —�—�-g�{-F1 ZNSTRLCTION9 1. Cleiae tor daeth, iniury to pereon or pereonnl property must be [ilea not lster than aix montha attar tha occurranca. (COV. CoCe sac. 911.2) 2. Claiwa far damagas to real pcoperty must be liled not lnter then 1 year aftar the ocaurrence. (GOV. Coda Sea. 911.2) 7. Raad antira cleiw torm batore tiliry. 6. See pa9e 2 tor�diagrem upon whioh to loaata plaoe oL eocidant. 5. Thie clslm torm nuat be signed on Page 2 et bottom. 6. attach separate eheete, i[ neceeeary, to qlve tull details. SIGN BACH SHEET. Arroyo Grande oL Claiment Daniel Cashier Howe AdCLOae OL 48 Whitecap St. Busineee Addreae Pismo Beach, CA ot c�eimant 6/11/34 :ion of Retired Give addrees snd telephone number to cieimanc•c soc►i vhic� you dasire notiaes or connunica- Security Number tlone to be eent regardinq thie alaima Same as above 363-32-3537 Data ��5/01 GS ot INJURlt mr? NeAes oL nny City .amplo� Time �� involved in INJURY or D1 If alaim ie !or Squitable Indnonity, qlve deta clelment served with thet aompleintt� Data: Whara did DAHAGB or INJURY occur7 Describe Lully, ana loceta on aiaqram on revarse eide o! this ehaet. Where approprinte, giva straet nemes end addrese and meaeurenente trom landmnrks: Street parking area in front of Gina's Restaurant, 138 E. Branch ST., Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. Describe Sn detnil how the DAlUG6 or INJURY oaourrad. When I backed my car into the curb parking space my rear fender was scratched and creased by one of the movable cement large flower pols which was placed beyond the curb extending into the street. I did not see the flower pot until after I parked my car and someone walking nearby said "iYs to bad it is so close", refernng to flower pot extending over the curb. I moved the fl ower pot back. you clain lhe�Clty I went into Gina's Restaruant to report it to Hilary Kuphal,owner/manager. She told me than Gina's was not responsible because the flower pots belong to the City of Arroyo Grande. She told me to repoR it to Bob Lund of Lund's. Bob told me to contact the C ity of Arroyo Grande. Describe in detai: each ZNJURY or DJ�MAGB � Rear right fender scratched and creased. SE6 PAGB ](OYBR) Tt129 CWIH NUST BB SIGNBD ON REVERSE SIDB The amouni claimed, ae oL the date ot preaentation of thie clnim, is conputed as follovs: Damage incurred to date (exect)t Betineted prospective dameqea 789.47 �ee far ne knownz Da�ege to property......$ Future azpanaee for medical Sxpansea [or oedicel nnd hospital cere.....$ and hospitnl cere.......$ Putura lose ot Loas oP eerninge........$ earninqs ..............$ Special demegas for Other prospeative epecial ... .............$ demegae.......... ..S .. ...... ... Genezal damaqes.........5 Prospective general Total demagee incurred 799:47 demeqes ...............$ to date ...............5 Totnl eetimete proepective deneqes .............5 Total amount clnimad ee o[ dete qf presentetion oL thia cleim........$ 789•47 Wes dameqe and/or injury inveetiqated by police? � If so, vhat City: Nere paremedice or aebulanae callad7 No If eo, nene City or a�bulance It injured, state date, time, nane end eddrass of doctor of your first WITNBSSES to DAMAGfi ot INJURYe Liet all patsone and addresses ot petsone known to have information: __ 481-3266 .."' LIII�... V��..A�I ..w..___ 13R F Rrench Rt ..�_ DOCTORS and HOSPITALS: � READ CARSFULLY� Por al'1 accident claime place on lollowinq diegrem nemes of sireets, including North, Eest, South, end Wastt indicata plaae o! eccid6nt by "X" end by ahovinq house numbere or dietencae to etraet cornAre. If City Vehicle vae lnvolved, designete by letter "A" location o! City Vehlale when you first sew St, end by "9" loaation of yourself or your vehiole when you first eaw City vehioler lxation ot City Vehiole e! time o! acoidant by "A- 1" end locatlon of yourseli oz your vahicla st tho lime of tha eccident by "B-1^ end the polnt oL impect by ��X.^ NOTS: IL dlagrems belov do not fit the situation, attech hareto a proper dingram cigned by claimant. \ cune / � 410EwA11{ cuno PMRwwY SqEVMl1t 7 � or pereon � Typed Neme: Daniel Cashier NOTE: CLAIMS NUST B� FIGED WITH CITY CLERK Presentation ot a falee cleim ie e felony ( Code Sec. 72�. Detes 10/9/01 IJ i /I / ADMIHISTRATIVE SERVICES January 23, 2002 Daniel Cashier . 48 Whitecap Street Pismo Beach CA 93429 P.O. Box 550 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Phone:(80� 473-5414 FAX: (80� 473-038f E-Mail: sgetty@srroyogrqnde.org REJECTION OF CLAIM PRESENTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grartde on October 11, 2001 was rejected on January 22, 2002. WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail to file a Court Action in a Municipal or a Superior Court of the State of California on this claim (See Govemment Code Section 945.6). You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Kelly Wetmore Director of Administrative Services c: City Manager City Attorney Director of Parks, Recreation, & Facilities Carl Warren & Co. __ 8.f. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lady called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Runels, Council Members Ferrara, Dickens and Lubin, City Manager Adams, City Attorney Carmel, and Public Works Director Spagnolo were present. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH REALPROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: Agency Negotiator: (1) APN 007-011-021 (2) APN 007-001-022 (3) APN 007-011-023 Don Spagnolo, Director of Public Works Negotiating Parties: (1) Southem California-Arizona Conference Camp Commission of the Methodist Church, a California non-profit corporation (2) Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, a California non-profit religious benefit corporation (3) The Central California Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, a California non-profit corporation. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment. 3. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Lady announced that there was no reportable action from the closed session. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 - 6:15 P.M. PAGE2 The meeting was adjourned at 2001. Michael A. Lady, Mayor ATTEST: p.m. to the regular City Council meeting of December 11, Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Services/ Deputy City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lady called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Lubin, Dickens, Ferrara, Mayor Pro Tem Runels, and MayorLady were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Adams; City Attorney Carmel; Director of Administrative Services Wetmore; Director of Financial Services Snodgrass; Community Development Director Strong; Associate Planner Heffernon; Associate Planner McClish; and Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Hernandez. 3. FLAG SALUTE Dan Dostal, representing Knights of Columbus, led the Flag Salute. 4. INVOCATION Pastor Vince Llamas, invocation. New Life Community Church, Pismo Beach, delivered the 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 5.a. Introduction of Miss Teen Arroyo Grande, Dania Bennett. Mayor Lady introduced Dania Bennett as the new Miss Teen Arroyo Grande and presented her with a City pin. Miss Bennett informed those present during her tenure as Miss Teen Arroyo Grande, she would be speaking on the issue of HIV and AIDS Awareness. � 5.b. Proclamation - Recognizing Eagle Scout William 1. Johnson. Mayor Lady presented a Proclamation to William Johnson congratulating him for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout and recognizing his commitment, diligence, and dedication in undertaking and completing his Eagle Scout project. 5.c. Proclamation - Recognizing Eagle Scout Anthony Oldham. Mayor Lady presented a Proclamation to Anthony Oldham congratulating him for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout and recognizing his commitment, diligence, and dedication in undertaking and completing his Eagle Scout project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 2 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Resolutions and Ordinances Read in Title Only Council Member Dickens moved, Mayor Pro Tem Runels seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. 7 CITIZENS' INPUT COMMENTS. AND SUGGESTIONS Ben Davis, 1238 Paseo Ladera, stated he had addressed the Council at a previous meeting regarding the billboard located at the Village entrance. He stated that although the sign was still in place, the message had changed and he thanked those who brought about the change. He stated that the location of the billboard remained an issue and the time for affecting change was now. He asked if the issue would still be on the January Agenda for review.. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Ferrara moved and Council Member Lubin seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.h., with the recommended courses of action. City Attorney Carmel read the title of Ordinance No. 529 C.S. adopting the new Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Approved the listing of cash disbursements for the period November 16, 2001 through November 30, 2001. • 8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of November 30, 2001. 8.c. Consideration of Cash Flow Analysis/Approval of InterFund Advance from the Water Facility Fund. Action: Received and filed October 2001 Cash Report and approved the interfund advance from the Water Facility Fund to cover cash deficits in other funds at 10/31/01. 8.d. Consideration of Annual Financial Report - Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Receipt and Use of Water and Sewer Development FeeslCharges. Action: Accepted and filed the annual report of the receipt and use of water and sewer development fees and charges in compliance with Government Code Section 66013. 8.e. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of October 3, 2001; the Special City Council Meeting of November 13, 2001; and the Regular City Council Meeting of November 13, 2001 as submitted. 8.f. Rejection of Claim Against City. Action: Rejected claim submitted by Orion Auto. 8.g. Adoption of Ordinance Adopting the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 529 C.S. adopting the new Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 3 8.h. Consideration of New State Minimum Wage. Action: Adopted Resolution No. 3570 increasing wages for those part-time positions that fall below the new State Minimum Wage which goes into effect January 1, 2002. AYES: Ferrara, Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.a. Consideration of Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-002 and Architectural Review Case No. 01-011; Five Cites Center, Phase ll. Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report. She explained that the Council had previously approved amendments to Phase II of the Five Cities Center with a condition that the Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council review the architectural elevations for Building M. She said because the plans for Building M included a larger outdoor patio seating area than what was allowed, the Planning Commission recommended that another amendment to the original Conditional Use Permit for the Five Cities Center be processed ooncurrently with the architectural review of Building M. The Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01- 002; and approve Architectural Review Case No. 01-011 for Building "M". Council Member Dickens referred to rooftop appliances and inquired if there were conditions on the project that required screening of equipment in order to eliminate visual impacts. Associate Planner Heffernon stated that the requirement for screening of roof-mounted equipment was part of the original conditions of approval for the entire Five Cities Center project and would apply to this project. Council Member Dickens expressed concerns with the flat roof on the bulk of the building and inquired whether staff had discussions with the applicant on what type of appliances might be placed on the roof. Associate Planner Heffernon responded there was discussion about refrigeration and heating elements required for a restaurant use. Council Member Ferrara inquired whether there had been discussion with the Architectural Review Committee regarding the absence of a faCade on the south portion of the building. Associate Planner Heffernon replied discussion had taken place about extending the tower element back further; however, they did not request the project plans be revised. She stated that the architect adequately addressed the issue by indicating the equipment would be screened. Council Member Lubin asked how high the parapet wall would be. Associate Planner Heffernon referred the question to the applicant's representative. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 4 Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Hearing none, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Dickens restated his concerns regarding the roof and the potential visual impacts from ineffectively screened equipment. He stated he was in favor of the project moving forward, supported a restaurant use in this location, and had no problems with the conditions of approval. He stated there should be a closer look at the roofline with some form of screening that fits in architecturally, specifically from the south elevation, and said he was not comfortable with proceeding with the application as presented until this issue is addressed. He asked if the applicant could address the issue. City Attorney Carmel referred to Condition #15 in Resolution No. 3157 in the original Conditions of Approval which requires that a full roof screening treatment plan be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. . He suggested that the Community Development Director bring that plan back to the Council for approval prior to finalizing it. Grant Harris, representative for the applicant, stated he did not have as-built level drawings or mechanical rooftop views with him. He stated that the architect that designed this building designed the rest of the Center and is sensitive to the issue. He stated that the restaurant was in full view of everything and everyone and it was not their intent nor in their best interest to have anything visible from the roof, especially on the south elevation. He stated they would supply staff with elevations showing the screening. Council Member Dickens asked if there would be outdoor seating on the north side. Associate Planner Heffernon replied yes, there would be outdoor seating that wraps around to the west side. Council Member Ferrara stated he was comfortable with the condition in the Development Code and he was also comfortable with the requirement for screening rooftop appliances on the entire Center. He referred to one small appliance on one of the roofs near Starbucks that was not screened; however, it was tucked under the fa�ade. He stated his main concern on this particular building is the flat roofline. He referred to other structures in the Center of this scale that have roof treatments so there is no appearance of a flat roof. He said he was looking for consistency, as he did not see this design as compatible with buildings of similar scale in the Center. He stated he would like to see another drawing that brings it into consistency. Mayor Pro Tem Runels stated he had no problems with the proposed project; however, he asked how long it would take to redesign the rooflines. Associate Planner Heffernon replied it could be brought back to the Council's next regular meeting. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 5 Council Member Lubin stated that he looked at the project differently. He stated he liked the image of the building; and he understood and shared the concerns about the screening of equipment. He said he liked the proposed elevations and had no problems with the project. Mayor Lady stated that he understood that the rooftop equipment would be screened and he felt confident that there would be no visible fixtures on the roof. He stated he liked the architectural drawings; however, he shared concerns expressed with regard to exposed rooftop appliances. There was further discussion with regard to potentially increasing the height of the buildings and leaving the roof height as is. Director Strong emphasized that a plan for the treatment of the rooftop has to be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior tb the issuance of a building permit and that prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. Council Member Ferrara referred to trash enclosures and asked if the standards now include ample space for recycling. Staff responded yes, the enclosure would have to provide the space for recycling. Council Member Lubin moved to adopt a Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-002, applied for by AGRA, LLC, Located at Five Cities Center, Phase II (Rancho Parkway and West Branch Street). Mayor Pro Tem Runels seconded the motion. Council Member Ferrara asked if the motion included the potential for additional height on the roof. Council Member Lubin amended the motion to adopt a Resolution approving Amended Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-002 subject to an increase in roof height as necessary to adequately screen equipment which shall be addressed and. implemented through the roof top treatment plan to be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, and further, to approve Architectural Review Case No. 01-011 for Building "M". Mayor Pro Tem Runels seconded the motion, and on the following roll- call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9.b. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 to Construct a 60- Unit Senior Apartment Compiex and a 3,000 Square Foot Senior Recreation Centec CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 6 Associate Planner Heffernon presented the staff report. She said the applicant proposes to construct 60 one and two bedroom apartment units averaging 900 square feet in size, and a 3,000 square foot senior recreation center; the apartments would be restricted to senior citizens, ages 55 and older; and 25% of the units would be reserved for those having a moderate-income level. She explained that a deed restriction is required as a condition of approval to ensure that the rent remains at this lower level. She stated that pedestrian access from the street to the apartment units meets all disabled access requirements, and the project conforms to Development Code requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height, and landscaping. She reported the only standard that was not met was the required parking and the applicant was requesting an exception to this requirement based on a parking analysis prepared by his tra�c engineer. Further, a traffic analysis was also prepared for the project, which concluded that the Level of Service on surrounding intersections would remain at an acceptable level with the addition of tra�c from the proposed development, based on the assumption that the Camino Mercado/West Branch Street intersection would be signalized. Given that a signal is warranted at this intersection, the project is conditioned to install the signal subject to reimbursement from the City for costs in excess of the projecYs signalization impact fee. Associate Planner Heffernon stated that after discussing matters of affordable housing assistance and requested fee reductions with the applicant, staff recommended that the Council consider these two policy issues before taking formal action on the project, and continue the public hearing to the January 22" Council meeting, or tater specific date, depending on need for Commission or staff research and recommendations regarding these policy issues. Council Member Ferrara asked the applicant, Mr. Young, what the range of rents would be for the units and how the one and two bedroom units would be split and allocated for moderate-income persons. Mr. Young responded that 25% of the units wouid be reserved for moderate-income persons. He stated the maximum rent on a 1-bedroom unit would be $1,056 and the maximum rent on a 2-bedroom unit would be $1,188. He indicated that he was projecting the rents would be lower than the maximum. He also stated he did not want to specify how many one bedroom and two bedroom units would be allocated at this time. � Further Council questions and discussion included how the deed restriction requirement would be administered; clarification that this would not be an assisted living facility; clarification on who would maintain the proposed senior center facility; clarification that there would be su�cient room for public transit access into the driveway; and the need for a bus stop and crosswalk at Camino Mercado. Steven Puglisi, project architect, stated he had modified the design of the project as requested and confirmed that buses and emergency vehicles would have on-site access to the project. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 7 Colleen McClain, 1222 Huasna road, spoke in favor of the proposed senior center. She stated that senior centers were very important in the socialization of seniors. Earl Paulding, 232 La Cresta Drive, spoke in favor of the proposed project. He stated there was a shortage of comparable units for residential use. He requested that the seniors in attendance stand to show their support of the project. He urged approval of the project. Ray Abdenur, 955 Via Las Aguilas, stated he had several questions such as how many seniors could use the project at one time; what the range of rents would be for moderate income persons; how much would rent be for those not of moderate income; whether anything was going to be done with the roof as the proposed composite roof was not compatible with the surroundirig residential tile roofs. He stated the City needed a senior center; however this was a bad location. He suggested the level area near Rite- Aid was a better location. He expressed concern with regard to traffic impacts and stated the road between W. Branch Street and Wal-Mart was too narrow for two cars to pass. He suggested that curbs should be painted on both sides for no parking. Jason Scott, 515 Dos Cerros, stated he lives within 200 feet of the proposed project. He opposed the senior center portion of the project and said it was a bad location for this component of the project. He expressed coricerns about traffic generation and questioned the project being short on the required number of parking spaces. He expressed concerns with timing of events and how late events at the center would be held. He further expressed concerns with the architectural design of the buildings with regard to the roof not being tile. Ron Livingston, 580 Dos Cerros, representing the Los Robles del Rancho Grande Homeowners Association, spoke in support of the senior apartments; however, spoke in opposition to the senior center. He stated the project was not thought out properly and read portions of a letter submitted for the record citing concerns with traffic, the proposed senior center and its utilization; access; costs being subsidized by the City; and architectural features. Yolando Alarcio, 311 N. Alpine, representing South County Seniors, spoke in favor of the proposed project. She stated that seniors need space to meet. She gave an overview of the group's activities. She stated that activities were held during daylight hours and there were no evening activities. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Lady closed the Public Hearing and asked the applicant if he would like to address some of the concerns expressed. Gary Young, applicant, addressed the issue of the roof material stating that composite roofing, which is fire retardant, was chosen due to safety reasons; confirmed that the project would have fire sprinklers; addressed the traffic issue on Camino Mercado stating that the road would be widened; and the project would meet all ADA requirements. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 8 Council Member Lubin asked if it was the Rancho Grande II Homeowners Association that required tile roofs within the development. Associate Planner Heffernon replied yes. Mayor Pro Tem Runels asked about installing fire sprinklers on the outside of the building, on the roof. Mr. Young stated it was considered and if asked, would submit to the condition. Council Member Ferrara referred to the Oak Park Acres Planned Development and stated the Development Code requires compatibility with architecture in surrounding area. He referred to the tile roofs on the Kolbo project, Mid State Bank office building, the Five Cities Center buildings, the motel, and Levitz and stated this project would be inconsistent in comparison. He spoke about the streetscape issue, the turning difficulty for delivery trucks, and asked if time had been taken to look at this segment of roadway. City Manager Adams reported on the plans for widening the roadway and stated that overall general planning has taken place with regard to street improvements. Council Member Ferrara referred to Council Member Dickens' work on a proposed South County Community Recreation Center and asked if that were eventually built, would the proposed senior center use remain in this project. Mr. Young replied that issue had not been discussed. Council Member Ferrara asked to what extent bus stop circulation had been discussed with the Transit Authority. Mr. Puglisi responded that numerous discussions had taken place with staff about an on-street bus stop and demonstrated on the map the designated pick-up spot. Council Member Lubin expressed support for the project as proposed, stating that concerns brought up in the pre-application presentation had been addressed. City Manager Adams provided clarification on the recommendations, stating that the applicant had requested a reduction in Park and Recreation fees and also requested use of Affordable Housing in-lieu fees that the City has collected. He stated the Council was requested to provide direction with regard to providing some of the affordable housing in-lieu fees to this project. . He spoke of the potential priority and intention of using these funds on projects within the redevelopment area of the City. Council Member Ferrara stated he would not mind waiving a small percentage of the Park and Recreation fees; however, he was not in favor of waiving all the Park and Recreation fees; concurred that projects within the redevelopment district should have first priority of affordable housing in-lieu fees; said he had a preference that affordable housing in-lieu fees be used for low income housing projects; agreed with waiving the Recreation Center Impact Fee in its entirety; and stated he did not support the composite roof on the project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 9 Council Member Dickens stated that the results of a community survey expressed the need for a Community Youth Center as number one and a Senior Center as number two. He stated this was an unmet need and this project was a step in the right direction. He supported waiving the entire Recreation Center Impact Fee; advocated looking at waiving a portion of the Park impact fees; stated that this was the first project during his three years on the Council that offers tangible affordable housing; and favored providing some portion of financial assistance to the applicant. He stated there were two huge benefits in this project: affordable housing and a potential senior center. He concluded by commenting on the issue regarding the roof material stating that he was not a big fan of red tile and he believed that the composite roof would blend in better with the hillside and would be compatible with the area. Council Member Lubin agreed with comments made by Council Member Dickens, stating he favored a proportional waiver of the Park impact fees and supported a complete waiver of the Recreation Center Impact Fee. Mayor Pro Tem Runels credited the developer for the proposed project that would provide affordable senior housing and a senior center. He also favored a reduction of a portion of the impact fees. Mayor Lady shared the philosophy of Council Member Dickens' view of the roof material and stated he supported the�proposed project. Council Member Lubin moved to conclude the item and continue the Public Hearing to the January 22, 2002 City Council Meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Runels seconded, and the motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS 10.a. Agreement with AGP Video for Cablecasting Services. City Manager Adams presented the staff report. Staff recommended the Council approve the proposed agreement with AGP Video for cablecasting services in order to televise City Council meetings on the City's government cable channel. • Council Member Ferrara moved to approve the agreement with AGP Video for cablecasting services in order to televise City Council meetings on the City's government cable channel. Council Member Lubin seconded the motion, and on the following roll-call vote, to wit: AYES: Ferrara, Lubin, Dickens, Lady NOES: Runels ABSENT: None There being 4 AYES and 1 NO, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 10 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.a. Preliminary Approval of Fiscal Year 2001-02 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Associate Planner McClish presented the staff report. She stated that thirteen applications had been received and the Council was requested to review the applications and determine which projects should be recommended to the County for funding. Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and invited comments from those in the audience who wished to be heard on the matter. Bernadette Bernardi, represeriting the Literacy Council, explained the role of the Literacy Council and appealed to the Council to reconsider their application and allocate some funding to them. Gail Gresham, representing Big Brothers/Big Sisters, explained who and what they are doing in the community and asked the Council to consider allocating some funds to their organization. Mark Schaeffer, representing UCP of SLO County, explained that their organization assists families with children with disabilities to participate in after-school recreation and summer camp programs offered in our County. He said scholarships are given for programs in Arroyo Grande and the City's Parks and Recreation Department is a leader in implementing this program within the County. He expressed appreciation for the recommended allocation of funding for UCP. Rae Fleming, Director of Health Services representing EOC, described the three programs that are requesting funding: Forty Wonderful, Senior Health Screening, and Teen Parenting. Ann Johnson, representing Harvest Bag, explained that Harvest Bag was run entirely by senior volunteers and explained their request for funds was for the lease/rental of a warehouse and the purchase of a new freezer to preserve food until distribution. Roger Castle, representing EOC Home Repair, thanked the Council for its past support and stated that last year's approval of funding helped four needy families. He commented that it was interesting to note that the City was proposing to allocate funds for the Code Enforcement position. He explained that Code Enforcement commonly cites homes in disrepair. He respectfully requested that the City allocate a portion of that funding ($25,000) toward the Home Repair program so that homes may be fixed and therefore not require Code Enforcement activity. Michael Passarelli, representing the Food Bank, stated that the Food Bank was reapplying for the balance of funds needed for their warehouse acquisition project. He gave an overview of Food Bank's distribution to agencies in the South County in 2001. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 11 Hearing no further comments, Mayor Lady brought the item back to Council for consideration. Discussion ensued regarding the allocation of funds for public services. Staff explained that only 15% of the total allocation of CDBG funds could be awarded for public services. Council Member Ferrara suggested taking the maximum allocation for public services and splitting it evenly across the board among the agencies. Alternatively, he referred to Alternative #2 and suggested one option would be to leave the recommendations as is and give the Literacy Council and Big Brothers/Sisters priority next year or another option would be to reduce a portion of funding from the others to allocate to these two agencies. Council Member Lubin noted an addition error in the Subtotal for Public Services (should be $21,074 instead of $21,751). He suggested reducing each project by $500 which would result in approximately $2,600 to allocate to the other agencies. Council Member Ferrara suggested transferring the $5,000 from the Cuesta College Small Business Development Center project to the EOC Home Repair project. Discussion was held regarding the proposed City Hall project for the renovation of the restroom facilities and widening of the corridor to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Mayor Lady suggested reducing the allocation for the City project by $5,000 and putting it toward the EOC Home Repair project to total $10,000. Following discussion, the Council unanimously concurred with the preliminary project allocations in Alternative #2 as follows: EOC - Forty Wonderful EOC Senior Health Screening EOC - Teen Parenting Literacy Council Big Brothers/Sisters UCP of SLO Co. The Harvest Bag, Inc. EOC Home Repair Food Bank Coalition City of Arroyo Grande - Building & Fire Cuesta College Small Business Center City of Arroyo Grande - Economic Development City of Arroyo Grande - Community Developmenf $1,500 $3,500 $3,100 $1,575 $1,575 $2,500 $8,000 $10,000 $11,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $10,000 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 12 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS a) General Plan Update status and request to place related issues on future City Council agenda. (Ferrara) Council Member Ferrara stated he had been contacted by the proponents of the referendum petition and said that despite the fact of the status of the referendum, the proponents and the issue were not going away. He spoke of staff and attorney time and costs and indicated that the next step would be a legal challenge. He requested the Council consider bringing back the issue on a future Agenda for future consideration and discussion. Mayor Lady, Mayor Pro Tem Runels, and Council Member Lubin each separately responded that they were comfortable with their decision on the General Plan and had no interest in further discussing the issue. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Lubin announced the birth of his grandson. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS City Manager Adams reported that the City Engineer had received Final Tract Map 2260 Phase II, owned by Berry Gardens LLC. The subject tract is located between East Grand Avenue and Ash Street on the east side of the new Courtland Avenue extension. This is a split of one parcel of 796,408 square feet in size into fifty-six (56) separate lots ranging from 6,000 to 9,088 square feet in size, and a remainder portion of 318,188 square feet in size. The remainder portion is reserved for the Tract 2260 Phase III map. Unless appealed, the Final Map will be approved or disapproved by the City Engineer within ten days following the date of this agenda. 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lady adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Michael A. Lady, Mayor ATTEST: Kelly Wetmore, Director of Administrative Services/ Deputy City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lady called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Council: Council Members Lubin, Dickens, Ferrara, Mayor Pro Tem Runels, and Mayor Lady were present. City Staff Present: City Manager Adams; City Attorney Carmel; City Clerk Nancy Davis; Director of Public Works Spagnola; Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Hernandez; Director of Community Development Strong. 3: FLAG SALUTE Mayor Lady led the Pledge of Allegiance of ourFlag 4. INVOCATION Pastor George Lepper invocation. of Peace Lutheran Church of Arroyo Grande delivered the 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 6. AGENDA REVIEW 6.a. Resolutions and Ordinances Read in Title Only Council Member Ferrara moved, Mayor Pro Tem Runels seconded, and the motion passed unanimously that all resolutions and ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read in title only and all further reading be waived. William McCann, 575 Crown Hill, Chair of the Citizens' Committee for the Conservation of Local Agriculture; Sharlotte Wilson, Arroyo Grande; Carie Randolph, 1310 Sierra Drive; Nanci Parker, Arroyo Grande; and Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, all asked the Council to reconsider its actions with regard to rezoning in the General Plan of a parcel of agricultural land off Branch Mill Road. They asked for a public discussion of the matter. They said they had circulated Referendum Petitions against the Council action in good faith and felt the petitions had been wrongly City Council Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 2 rejected. They referred to a letter from the CCCLA's law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger stating, "The City Clerk has a ministerial duty to accept the Referendum Petition because it complies with all procedural requirements of the Elections Code." Mr. McCann submitted his statement for the record. Paul Thorvaldsen, 538 Ide Street, spoke on behalf of the Arroyo Grande Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, and said City Manager Steve Adams and Economic Development Director Diane Sheeley were recipients of the Chamber's Annual "Directors Award." He said the award showed the Chamber's appreciation to the City of Arroyo Grande for collaborative efforts in the past year and for being instrumental in promoting business growth and teamwork between the City and the Chamber. Colleen Martin, 855 Olive Street, asked Council to revisit three issues that were part of the General Plan actions. They were rezoning of property in the Lierly Lane/East Cherry area, rezoning agricultural land off Branch Mill Road, and Tract 1998. She also asked the Council to listen to the proponents to the Referendum petitions. Otis Page, 606 Myrtle Street, submitted a statement for the record concerning the Referendum Petitions. He said the petitions were misleading to the signers. He said he had made a formal complaint to the Secretary of State regarding the Referendum Petitions. He read the law regarding petitions and said there was complete obfuscation of facts. 8. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Lubin moved and Council Member Runels seconded the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 8 a.m. through 8.g., with the recommended courses of action. 8.a. Cash Disbursement Ratification. Action: Approved the listing of cash disbursements for the period December 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. ' 8.b. Statement of Investment Deposits. Action: Received and filed the report of current investment deposits as of December 31, 2001. 8.c. Consideration of Approval of Minutes. Action: Approved minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of October 9, 2001, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of November 27, 2001, as submitted. 8.d. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution in Support of Proposition 42. Action: Adopted a Resolution in Support of Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act. City Council Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 3 8.e. Consideration of Award of Contract for the Oak Park Boulevard Widening Project, Project No. PW-00-01. Action: (1) Awarded a construction contract to Souza Construction in the amount of $192,904; (2) Authorized the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $23,000 for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project; and (3) Directed staff to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed with other necessary contract documents. 8.f. Consideration of Award of Contract for the March 2001 Storm Restoration Project at Rodeo Drive — Project No. PW-01-04. Action: (1) Awarded a construction contract to Papich Construction in the Amount of $60,514.10; (2) Authorized the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed 10 per cent of the contract amount ($6,051) for use only if needed for unanticipated costs during the construction phase of the project, and (3) Direct staff to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed with other necessary contract documents. 8.g. Authorization to Refund Application Fees for Central Coast Salmon Enhancement Creek Clean-up and Watershed Education Fair. Action: Approved the request to waive the fees for Temporary Use Permit 01- 020. AYES: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.a. Consideration of Resolution Abandoning a 1.40-Acre Portion of Rancho Grande Park. � Mayor Lady opened the Public Hearing and said it had been duly noticed and all members of the public were invited to come forward and speak on the matter. Council Member Lubin said he had a potential conflict of interest on the issue and left the dais. Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director Hernandez presented the staff report and said pursuant to Government Code Section 38501 et. seq., before abandoning a portion of property originally dedicated for park purposes, the City must adopt a resolution of intention describing the portion of the park to be abandoned. The City Council must also fix a time, at least 30 days after adoption of the resolution, when it City Council Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 4 will meet to take final action. He said the City satisfied this requirement on November 13, 2001. He said construction is anticipated to begin in April 2002. There was a Council question about what process would be used to sell the property, and Director Hernandez said the City would handle the sale. Another question concerned appraisal of the property and if a"first right of refusal" is involved. Director Hernandez said there would be a new appraisal and that a"first right of refusal" affects two of the three parcels. No one from the public came forward to speak. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Runels said he could not support the sale of parkland. He said the sale might jeopardize future City requirements of developers to donate parkland for money for a park as part of a project. Council Members Dickens, Ferrara and Mayor Lady said the City would remain with an 8.6 acre park; with the sale there would be money to build the park; the park would be built sooner; and most citizens want the entire to be park built as soon as possible. � It was moved by Council Member Ferrara and seconded by Council Member Dickens to approve a Resolution Abandoning a 1.40-Acre Portion of Land Designated for the Development of Rancho Grande Park, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Ferrara, Dickens, Lady NOES: Runels ABSENT: Lubin There being 3 AYES, 1 NO, and 1 ABSENT, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. ' Council Member Lubin returned to the dais. 10. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS: 11.a. Consideration of Approval of Third Amendment to the Street Sweeping Service Agreement with Daystar Industries. City Council Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 5 Public Works Director Spagnolo presented the staff report. He discussed funding; the history of the contract, which was approved November 24, 1998; a reduction of street sweeping complaints of 23 percent; contract amendments; changes made in street sweeping days, and an analysis of the costs of in-house street sweeping services. He said the staff report included projected costs for street sweeping broken down into various categories. He said staff recommended approval of the amended service agreement for one year with the option of one additional one-year extension (subject to the prior written approval of the parties as to terms and conditions) so that the City has the ability to review the contractor's performance after each year. Mayor Pro Tem Runels asked about the dumping area used by the contractor and City Attorney Carmel said the City is protected in that the contract states the dumping must be in a licensed facility and in a manner prescribed by law. City Attorney Carmel also said Section XI B. 1. 2. and 3. should be amended to increase Comprehensive General Liability, Automobile Liability, and Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability from $1,000,000.00 to $2,000,000.00 each. Council Members' questions included the contract increase from last year. Public Works Director Spagnolo said it would be approximately $2,200 annually. Mayor Pro Tem Runels asked about sweeping for newly developed areas of the City and Director Spagnolo said the potential is #here for an increase after the contract is signed. No one from the public came forward to speak. Council Members said they would approve the Third Amendment to the Street Sweeping Contract on the basis of the facts that the number of complaints is down; complaints are handled satisfactorily; it would be cost-prohibitive to do sweeping in- house, and the contract can be rebid next year. It was moved by Council Member Lubin and seconded by Council Member Dickens to approve the Third Amendment to the Street Sweeping Service Agreement with Daystar Industries, including the increases in insurance coverage suggested by the City Attorney; authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Lubin, Dickens, Ferrara, Runels, Lady NOES: None ABSENT: None There being 5 AYES and 0 NOES, the motion is hereby declared to be passed. City Council Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 6 12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None. 13. CITY MANAGER ITEMS None. 14. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Members Dickens said he-had attended the League of California Cities Annual Conference. He distributed literature to the Council from the Friends of Action for Better Cities. He said he had copies of resolutions approved at the conference if anyone was interested. He suggested sponsoring a student delegate from the City next year. Council Member Ferrara said this was the first year for LOCC grass roots advocates and suggested inviting the City's advocate to the next joint City/County meeting. He also said he would be attending the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments meeting on January 9, 2002, and money would be reserved at this time for City improvements at Brisco Road, Highway 227, and East Grand Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Runels and Mayor Lady said they attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the new sheriffs' substation in Oceano. 15. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS City Manager Adams said the South County Sanitary Service (San Luis Garbage Company) had been sold recently to Waste Connections. He said San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management would assist the City with the revision of the Franchise Agreement. The City Manager said the joint meeting date with Lucia Mar Unified School District and the date for a meeting of the joint cities are being worked out. 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lady adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Michael A. Lady, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy A. Davis, City Clerk 8.h. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT TO UTILITY COMPANIES FOR WORK ON THE OAK PARK BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT, PW-00-01 DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council: A. authorize payments that total $101,800 to affected utility companies including Pacific Gas & Electric ($80,500), Pacific Bell ($14,800), and Charter Communications ($6,500) for design and construction services on the Oak Park Boulevard Widening Project; B. authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency of $10,180 for use only if needed for unanticipated undergrounding costs during the construction phase of the project (total construction costs = $101,800 + $10,180 = $111,980). FUNDING: The FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Budget contains $387,600 for the construction of the Oak Park Boulevard Widening Project ($352,400 for construction and $35,200 construction contingencies). On January 8, 2002, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Souza Construction in the amount of $192,904 plus $23,000 in construction contingencies for the project, leaving a balance of $171,696 available to underground existing overhead utilities. DISCUSSION: On May 9, 2000, the City Council directed staff to coordinate with the affected utility companies to include undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities between Ramona Avenue and Brighton Avenue as part of the Oak Park Boulevard Widening project. OAK PARK BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT JANUARY 22, 2002 PAGE 2 The engineering design plans to underground the existing overhead utilities have been completed and the utility companies are requesting the following amounts for costs associated with the design and construction of the widening project: • Pacific Gas & Electric $ 80,500 • Pacific Bell 14,800 • Charter Communications 6.500 Total $ 101,800 It is recommended that an additional 10 percent ($10,180) be reserved for use only if needed for unanticipated undergrounding costs during the construction phase of the project. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: • Approve staffs recommendations; • Do not approve staffs recommendations; • Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendations; or • Provide direction to staff. 8.1. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR '�S BY: RYAN FOSTER, PLANNING INTERN� SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO REFUND APPLICATION FEES FOR THE ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION CHRISTMAS CAROLING IN THE VILLAGE DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council consider the request from the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association (Attachment 1) to refund the fee for Temporary Use Permit 01-029. FUNDING: The applicant is requesting a refund which will cost the City 5105. DISCUSSION: Temporary Use Permit 01-029 was issued to the Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association to conduct Christmas caroling in the Village Gazebo on December 21, 2001. The Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association has requested a refund for the full amount of the Temporary Use Permit fee, 5105.00. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: -Refund the fee; -Do not refund the fee; -Provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Request for refund from applicant Attachment 1 ARROYO GRANDE VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PO BOX 1526 ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93421 December 11, 2001 To: Members of the Arroyo Grande City Council Fm: Bob Lund, Exec. Dir. AGVIA Gentlemen: The Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association is sponsoring a chorat group from the Church of Latter Day Saints on Friday evening, December 21, 2001 at the Village gazeb.o at 7:00 PM. Since this is a community benefit event, we respectfully request a refund of the $105.00 fee that we have paid as part of the required permit process. Sincerel , • a� � Bob Lund � Executive Director 8.j. MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR� SUBJECT: EIR CONSULTANT CONTRACT, CREEKSIDE CENTER PROJECT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve the Contract with the Applicant. 2. Approve the Contract with the Consultant. BACKGROUND: Approximately one year ago the City received Conditional Use Permit application No. 01- 001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-002 for Creekside Center, to develop a retail commercial, office and residential complex at 415 East Branch Street on the former Loomis property at the east edge of the Village. The project would involve construction of 35,000-sq. ft. of commercial, office and residential space in five separate one and two story buildings and reconfigure 37 existing lots into five parcels comprising the 3.5-acre site. The project proposes to retain and remodel an existing office building, relocate two former Loomis residences, and remove the E. C. Loomis and Son Feed Store. During the initial studies for environmental determination, the City received two conflicting opinions from qualified historic consultants concerning the historic significance of the two residences and farm supply store building. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA►, the City required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the historic significance, traffic, biological, drainage and flood control, aesthetics, noise and other potential impact issues associated with the development. In August, the Planning Commission considered the staff recommended scope of the proposed EIR and in September the City issued a Notice of Preparation. On October 16, 2001 the City distributed a Request for Proposal that produced nine responses from qualified EIR consultants, several including separate historic consultant subcontractors. EIR Consultant Contract January 22, 2002 Page 2 During November the City screened these proposals and interviewed the four firms that submitted what staff determined to be the best proposals. After interviews the City selected a preferred EIR firm, negotiated certain work scope clarifications and revisions, and conferred with the applicant, Richard DeBlauw, regarding potential contract cost and required deposit. The nine proposals ranged from 556,000 to over S100,000. The preferred consultant proposal was submitted by Denise Duffy and Associates of Monterey, California, with an initial cost estimate of approximately 575,000. After preliminary contract negotiations, including review and comment by from the applicant, staff has received a revised budget and amendment to proposed scope of work including, a change in the historical subcontractor to Chattel Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Inc., of Sherman Oaks, CA. The revised budget recommended for contract purposes is 564,987. FUNDING: The City's rules and procedures for CEQA process provide that the costs associated with the preparation, printing and distribution of EIRs for private projects shall be borne by the applicant. In addition to the contract cost the applicant is required to pay an administrative fee of 15% of the total EIR cost to compensate for City staff time spent in EIR completion. Although these 1990 rules and procedures require that "funds sufficient to pay for the required EIR be deposited in a City trust account" by the applicant prior to signing of the consultant contract, because of the significant amount of money involved, staff recommends that the Council consider allowing an agreement with the applicant for installment payments sufficient in amount to cover progress payments to the EIR consultant during the estimated six month preparation, printing and distribution period. Attachment No. 1 is a draft standard form City/Consultant Services Agreement for this proposed EIR contract. Attachment No. 2 is a summary of the January 2, 2002 Revised Work Scope and Cost Schedule which would be Exhibit 'C' of the proposed EIR Contract. Attachment No. 3 is a proposed agreement between the City and the applicant providing for installment payment of the estimated Consultant contract and administrative fee. These documents are submitted as a single consent agenda item Council approval for authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Consultant upon receipt of the Applicants' agreement, accompanied by the initial installment of required fund and fee deposits. _ EIR Consultant Contract January 22, 2002 Page 3 The Applicant has been advised of this recommended Consultant selection, including scope, cost and schedule for performance and informally consented to the proposed agreements. Copies of all the alternative proposals, the referenced applications and other background materials are available at the Community Development Department. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for Council's consideration: - Modify the Contract; - Provide alternative direction to staff; - Deny the Contract. Attachments: 1. Draft standard form City/Consultant Services Agreement. 2. Summary of January 2, 2002 Revised Work Scope and Cost Schedule , Exhibit 'C' of the proposed EIR contract. 3. Proposed agreement between the City and the applicant. _ ATTACHMENT1 CONSULTAPIT SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement is made upon the date of execution, as set forth below, by and between Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"), and the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter xeferred to as"CITY"). The parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: 1.00 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.01 TERMS. This Agreement will become effective on the date of execution set forth below, and will continue in effect until terminated as provided herein. 1 A2 CONTRACT COORDINATION a. CITI'. The COM1VIUriITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR shall be the representative of CITY for all purposes under this Agreement. The Community Development Director, or his designated representative, hereby is designated as the Contract Manager for the CITY. He sha11 supervise the progress and execution of this Agreement. b. CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall assign a single Contract Manager to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of ttus Agreement for CONSULT- ANT. ALISON IMAMURA is hereby designated as the Contract Manager for CONSULTANT. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of trus Agreement require a substitute Contract Manager far any reason, the Contract Manager designee sha11 be subject to the prior written acceptance and approval of the CITI"s Contract Manager. CONSULTANT's Contract Team is further described in E�chibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The individuals identified and the positions held as described in E�ibit "A" sha11 not be changed except by prior approval of CITY. 1.03 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT agrees to perform or provide the services specified in the Proposal to Prepaze an Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center dated November 2001 and updated on December 5, 2001 and January 2, 2002, attached hereto as Eachibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. CONSULTANT shall detemvne the method, details and means of performing the above-referenced services. CONSULTANT may, at CONSULTANT's own expense, employ such assistants as CONSULTANT deems necessary to perform the services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement. CITY may not control, direct or supervise CONSULTANT's assistants or employees in the performance of those services. 1.04 COMPENSATION. In consideration For the services to be performed by CONSULTANT, CITI' agrees to pay CONSULTANT the consideration set forth in the amounts and under the terms provided in the Revised Scope and Budget dated January 2, 2002 included as Eachibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Creekside Center EIR Conhact Page 1 of 9 CONSiJLTANT understands that the Applicant is responsible for payment of all funds far contract services and administrative fees associated with this agreement, and that CITY has allowed by related ageement with Applicant installments payable as follows: a. For initial deposit of 50% of estimated costs and fees prior to CITY/CONSLTLTANT contract being effective. b. Second installment deposit of 25% o£ estimated costs and fees witrun two (2) months of date of this agreement. c. Third installment deposit of 25% and/or the remaining balance due of all actual, necessary and approved additional expenses of CITY/CONSULTANT contract and administrative fees within four (4) months of the date of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall submit montttly or more frequent progress reports and itemized statements for services not to exceed these installments and estnnated total scope and budget unless specifically approved by the City's contract manager and enabled by adequate deposit of funds and fees by the Applicant. CITY reserves the right to terminate or suspend the schedule and modify the scope of this contract for any reason, but specifically including failure of the Applicant to make required installment deposits. 2.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT 2.01 MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SERVICE BY CONSULTANT CONSULTANT agrees to devote the hours necessary to perform the services set forth in this Agreement in an efficient and effective manner. CONSULTANT may represent, perform services for and be employed by additional individuals or entities, in CONSULTANT's sole discretion, as long as the performance of these extra-contractual services does not interfere with or present a conflict with CITY's business. 2.02 TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES CONSULTANT shall provide all tools and insmzmentalities necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. • 2.03 LAWS TO BE OBSERVED. CONSULTANT shall: a. Procure all permits and licenses, pay all chazges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement; b. Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or employed under this Agreement, any materials used in CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, or the conduct of the services under this Agreement; Creekside Center EIR Contract Page 2 of 9 c. At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above; and d. Immediately report to the CITY's Contract Manager in writing any discrepancy or inconsistency it discoveis in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or provisions of this Agreement. 2.04 RELEASE OF REPORTS AND INFORMATION. Any videotape, reports, information, data, or other material given to, or prepared or assembled by, CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall be the property of CITY and shall not be made available to any individual or organiza6on by CONSULTANT without the prior written approval of the CITY's Contract Manager. 2.05 COPIES OF REPORTS AND INFORMATION If CITY requests additional copies of videotapes, reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the CONSULTANT is required to futnish in limited quantities as part of the services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide such addirional copies as are requested, and CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for the costs of duplicating of such copies at CONSULTANT's direct expense. 2.06 QUALIF'ICATIONS OF CONSULTANT. CONSiJLTANT represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement. 2.07 WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CITY and CONSiJLTANT intend and agree that CONSI7LTANT is an independent contractor of CITY and agrees that CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT's employees and agents have no right to City Workers' Compensation and other employee benefits. CONSULTANT agrees to provide Workers' Compensation and other employee benefits, where required by law, for CONSULTANT's employees and agents. CONSULTANT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY for any and all claims arising out of any claim for injury, disability, or death of CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT's employees or agents. 2.08 INDEMNIFICATION CONSULTANT hereby agrees to, and shall, hold CITY, its elective and appointive boazds, officers, agents and employees, harmless and shall defend the same from any liability for damage or claims for damage, or suits or actions at law or in equity which may allegedly arise from CONSULTANT's or any of CONSLJLTANT's employees' or agents' operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by CONSULTANT or by any one or more persons directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for, CONSULTANT provided as follows: a. That CITY does not, and shall not, waive any rights against CON- SULTANT which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold-hazmless agreement, because of the acceptance by CITY, or the deposit with CITY by CONSULTANT, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter described. Creekside Center EIR Contract Page 3 of 9 . _ b. That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by CONSULTANT shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations of CONSiJLTANT or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT regazdless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 2.09 INSURANCE. CONSULTANT shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required under this section and such insurance shall have been approved by CITY as to form, amount and carrier: a. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement such public liability and property damage insurance as shall protect CITY, its elective and appointive boazds, officers, agents and employees, and CONSULTANT and any agents and employees performing work covered by this Agreement from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from CONSULTANT's or any subcontirractor's operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by CONSULTANT or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT and the amounts of such insurance shall be as follows: (1) Public Liability Insurance. In an amount not less than $1,000,000 for injuries, including, but not limited to, death to any one person and, subject to the same limit for each person, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 on account of any one occurrence: (2) Property Damage Insurance. In an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for damage to the property of each person on account of any one occurrence. (3) Comprehensive Automobile Liability. Bodily injury liability coverage of $1,000,000 for each person in any one accident and for injuries sustained by hvo or more persons in any one accident. Property damage liability of $1,000,000 for each accident. (4) Workers' Compensation Insurance. In the amounts required by law as set forth in Section 2.03 above. b. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declazed to, and approved by, CITY. CITY may require that either the insurer reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects CITY, its elected or appointed officials, employees, agents or volunteers; or CONSULTANT shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of all losses, and related investigation, claims administration and legal expenses. c. Proof of Insurance CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY, concurrently with the execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required, and adequate legal assurance that each carrier will give CITI' at least thirty (30) days' prior notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of this Agreement. The certificate or policy of liability of insurance shall name CITY as an additional insured with CONSULTANT. Creekside Center EIIt Conhact Page 4 of 9 . _ __ _ 3.00 TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK Program scheduling shall be as described in Exhibit "D" unless revisions to the exhibit aze approved by the CITY's Contract Manager and CONSULTANT's Contract Manager. Time extensions may be allowed for delays caused by CITY, other governmental agencies, or factors not directly brought about by the negligence or lack of due care on the part of the CONSULTANT. 4.00 TEMPORARY SUSPENSION Upon written noUce to CONSULTANT, CIT'I"s Contract Manager shall have the authority to suspend ttus Agreement wholly or in part, for such period as she deems necessary due to unfavorable conditions or to the failure on the part of the CONSULTANT to perform any provision of this Agreement. CONSULTANT will be paid the compensation due and payable to the date of temporary suspension. 5.00 INSPECTION CONSULTANT shall fiunish CITY with every reasonable opportunity for CITY to ascertain that the services of CONSULTANT aze being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this Agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shallbe subject to the CITY's Contract Manager's inspection and approval. The inspection of such' work shall not relieve CONSULTANT of any of its obligations to fulfill its Agreement as prescribed. 6.00 OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS All original drawings, videotapes and other materials prepazed by or in possession of CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall become the permanent property of the CITY, and shall be delivered to the CITY upon demand. 7.00 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY 7.01 COOPERATION. CITY agrees to comply with all reasonable requests of CONSULTANT necessary to the performance of CONSULTANT's duties under this Agreement. 8.00 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 8.01 TERNIINATION OF NOTICE Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, any party hereto may terminate this Agreement, at any time, without cause by giving at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other parties to this Agreement. 8.02 TERMINATION ON OCCURRENCE OF STATED EVENTS This Agreement shall ternunate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events: a. Bankruptcy or insolvency of any party; b. Sale of the business of any party; Creekside Center EIR Contract Page 5 of 9 or d. End of the Ageement to which CONSULTANT's services were necessary; e. Assignment of this Agreement by CONSULTANT without the consent of CITY. 8.03 TERMINATION BY ANY PARTY FOR DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. Should any party default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any oF its provisions, a non-breaching party, at its option, may terminate this Agreement, immediately, by giving written notice of termination to the breaching party. 8.04 TERMINATION This Agreement shall terminate on upon completion of services unless extended as set forth in this section. CITY, with the agreement of CONSULTANT, is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement beyond the termination date, as needed, under the same terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Any such extension shall be in writing and be an amendment to this Agreement. 8.05 RETURN OF MATERIALS. Upon such temunation, CONSiJLTANT shall hun over to the CITY immediately any and all copies of videotapes, studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepazed by CONSULTANT, and for which CONSULTANT has received reasonable compensation, or given to CONSULTANT in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the permanent property of CITY. CONSULTANT, however, shall not be liable for CITY's use of incomplete materials or for CITY's use of complete documents if used for other than the project or scope of services contemplated by this Agreement. 9.00 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 9.01 IPiTEREST OF CONSULTANT CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or othenvise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services hereunder. CO- NSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. CONSULTANT certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY. It is expressly agreed that, in the performance of the services hereunder, CONSULTANT shal� at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. 9.02 DISCRIMINATION No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons under this Agreement because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion or sex of such person. If CONSULTANT is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of Califomia Fair Employment Practices Act or similaz provisions of federal law or executive order in the performance of this Agreement, it shall thereby be found in material breach of this Agreement. Thereupon, CITY shall have the power to cancel or suspend this Agreement, in whole or in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to CONSULTANT the sum of Twenty-five Dollars ($25) for each person for each calendaz day during which such person was discrnninated against, as damages for said breach of contract, or both. Only a finding of ttte State of Galifomia Creekside Center EIIL Contract Page 6 of 9 Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer shall constitute evidence of a violation of contract under this pazagraph. If CONSULTANT is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement or the applicable affirmative action guidelines pertaining to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be found in material breach of the Agreement. Thereupon, CITl' shall have the power to cancel or suspend this Agreement, in whole or in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to CONSULTANT the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollazs ($250) for each calendaz day during which CONSULTANT is found to have been in such noncompliance as damages for said breach of contract, or both. 10.00 NIISCELLANEOUS 10.01 REMEDIES The remedies set forth in this Agreement shall not be exclusive but shall be cumulative with, and in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or equity. 10.02 NO WAIVER The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of this Agreement. 10.03 ASSIGNMENT. This Agceement is specifically not assignable by CONSLJLTANT to any person or enrity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by CONSULTANT, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law or othenvise, is void and is a material breach of this Agreement giving rise to a right to temunate as set forth in Section 8.03. 10.04 ATTORNEY FEES In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to other such relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum as and for attomey fees. 10.05 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Agreement, should the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be performed by either party be prevented or delayed by reason by any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any other cause except financial inability not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period of time equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall exclude the prompt payment by either party as required by this Agreement or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act. 10.06 NOTICES. Except as othenvise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or perxnitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to any party to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid to the following address for each respective party: Creekside Center EIR Conhact Page 7 of 9 CITY: City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421-0550 CONSULTANT: Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 Monterey, CA 93940 10.07 GOVERPTING LAW. This Agreement and all matters relating to this Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of California in force at the time any need for the interpretation of this Agreement or any decision or holding concerning this Agreement arises. 10.08 BINDING EFFECT This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, adtninistrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but nothing in this section shall be construed as a consent by CITY to any assignment of this Agreement or any interest in this Agreement. 10.09 SEVERABILITY Should any provision of this Agreement be held by a court of competent jurisdicrion or by a legislative or rule making act to be either invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unimpaired by the holding, legislation or rule. 10.10 SOLE AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement correctly sets forth the obligations of the parties hereto to each other as of the date of this Agreement. All agreements or representations respecting the subject matter of this Agreement not expressly set forth or referred to in this Agreement aze null and void. 10.11 TIME. Time is expressly declazed to be of the essence of this Agreement. 10.12 DUE AUTHORITY. The parties hereby represent that the individuals executing this Agreement are expressly authorized to do so on and in behalf of the parties. 10.13 CONSTRUCTION. The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this Agreement and that any rule of conshuction to the effect that ambiguities aze to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections aze for convenience and reference only, and aze not intended to be construed to define or limit the provisions to which they relate. 10.14 AMENDMENTS Amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be made only with the mutual written consent of all of the parties to this Agreement. Creekside Center EIR Contract Page 8 of 9 Executed on , at Arroyo Grande, California. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY CONSULTANT ALISON IMAMURA, PROJECT MANAGER, DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Creekside Center EIR Contract Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT A Section I. INTRODUCTION PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Arroyo Grande is requesting proposals from qualified consulting firms to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-002 for the Creekside Center, located at 415 East Branch Street. The project proposes development of 33,000 square feet of commercial retail and office and 4,000 square feet of residential, including lot reconfiguration. The site is 3.5 acres and is located at the northwest corner of East Branch Street and Crown Terrace near intersections and roadways with some existing congestion. The mixed-use development would also include a public park and garden area that would provide pedestrian connectivity to adjacent and nearby recreational open space, shopping and dining uses. The applicant intends to retain and enhance the existing office building, relocate one residence that is currently on the property, and demolish the existing E.C. Loomis & Son Feed Store, which has potential historic value. KEYISSUES Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) has compiled a team that is fuliy knowledgeable in the planning and community issues in the area, based on professional experience having prepared the Master EIR for the Rancho Grande Planned Development, as well as experience on numerous similar redevelopment, infill projects in cities throughout central Califomia. DD&A has prepared numerous EIRs and other CEQA/NEPA documents for projects involving infill and or transpoRation/infrastructure properties with historic or potentialiy historic characteristics (see below). Major environmental issues anticipated for the project are listed below. These issues will be specifically addressed in the EIR, in addition to all other elements required by CEQA. • Historical and Archaeological Resources • Biological Resources • Land Use and Planning • Traffic and Circulation • Water Quality and Drainage • Geology and Soils • Public Services, Safety and Utilities • Air Quality • Noise OVERVIEW OF PROJECT TEAM This proposal has been prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates on behalf of our project team. DD&A will serve as primary consultant, preparing and coordinating the EIR analysis. In addition, DD&A's Natural Resources Group is proposed to address the biological impacts that may result from the project due to proximity of the site to the Taliy Ho creek and the potential for sensitive habitat and species on the site. The following highly qualified technical subconsultants have been selected to ensure that the EIR anaiysis is comprehensive, accurate, and legally sound. Jones & Stokes' Cultural Resource Specialists will prepare the cultural resources section of the EIR that will address the issues of historic resources and archaeologiral resources as identified in the letters from the Office of Historic Preservation, Preserve our Viilage, and the Native American Heritage Commission. Proposal to P�epare the Denise Duf(y B Associa:es, Inc. Creekside Centei EIR, Anoyo Grande INTRODUCTION • Associated Transportation Engineers will prepare the traffic and circulation study for the project based on an objective review of the applicanPs traffic study and with consideration for the concerns in the letter from the San Luis Obispo Councii of Governments. The DD&A team has demonstrated expertise relevant to the preparation of the EIR for this project, including the following: • Experienced senior staff with current knowledge of applying local, state, and federal laws, standards and practices to similar projects. • Complete technical capabilities for project evaluation and proven track record for on-time completion of projects within budget. • Exceilent working relationships among team members, fostered through past cooperative efforts. In particular, DD&A's project manager, Alison Imamura, has extensive CEQA review experience on historic properties including acting as project manager on the following relevant projects: — Hitchcock House /Sen Car/os Inn Initial Study and EIR. DD&A teamed with Jones & Stokes' Cultural Resources Group to prepare an Initial Study and an EIR for a proposed demolition of an arguably historic home in downtown Carmel-by-the-Sea and redevelopment of the site with a residentiai care facility. — Periwinkle-Sea Urchin EIR. DD&A teamed with Jones & Stokes' Cultural Resources Group to prepare an EIR including a detailed alternatives analysis for the proposed demolition of a locally historic home overlooking the beach in Carmel-by-the-Sea and redevelopment of the site with a new single family home. — Rispin Mansion Inn and Public Library. DD&A prepared a Draft EIR and is currently preparing the final EIR for the proposed rehabilitation and redevelopment of an infiil site considered to be a Historic District qualified for the National Register of Historic Places, including a 19'" century mansion of one of the founders of the City of Capitola. Other key issues include traffic and biological resources due to the site being immediately adjacent to Soquel Creek and a monarch butterfiy roosting site. — Sunset Center Renovation Plan EIR. DD&A prepared the EIR for the renovation of the Sunset Center Community Complex in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This property was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. After successful completion of the EIR, the Center is now undergoing renovation to meet applicable codes and to provide a modern theater with state of the art acoustics for community eventslncluding the Bach Festival. — Capitola Road Improvements NEPA Technical Studies. DD&A provided project management of NEPA studies including Section 106 (Historic properties) compliance documents for a roadway improvement project in the County of Santa Cruz. — Seismic Retrofit of San Clemente Dam - Cultural Resources Analysis. DD&A teamed with Jones & Stokes' Cultural Resources Group to prepare the cultural resources section of an EIR for the Seismic Retrofit of San Clemente Dam, a historic dam; located on a site containing exceptional Native American archaeological resources. In addition to San Clemente Dam, other structures on the project site were found to be historic. Proposal to Prepare the Denise Duf/y & Associates, lnc. Creekside Center EIR, Arroyo Grande Section II. EIR SCOPE OF WORK INTRODUCTION The DD&A team proposes to prepare an EIR for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA, City of Arroyo Grande, and all other legal requirements. The following scope presents a detailed description of the methodology to be used to prepare the EIR and technical studies. TASK DESCRIPTIONS Project Initiation/Kick-off Meeting This task includes initial review of the project and early consultation with the City and other responsible or interested agencies. The DD&A team will meet with City Planning staff to collect all project and relevant site information, identify critical milestones, finalize the schedule, and determine appropriate paths of communication. In conjunction with the kick-off meeting, a field visit and site review will be conducted by all team members. 2. Progress Reports As requested in the RFP, DD&A will provide a progress report every other week to the Community Development Director. These reports will summarize the status and progress of the work being performed by the consultant and subconsultants, will present any obstacles or information needs, and will reaffirm the scope of services. . 3. Administrative Draft EIR DD&A will prepare a detailed Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) for the project, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Office of Planning and Research guidelines, the City of Arroyo Grande and other agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Per communication with Kelly Heffemon, the project planner listed in the RFP, DD&A will submit 15 copies of the ADEIR to the City for review and comment. The EIR will contain the components described below. Summary A summary section will be included in the EIR to briefly describe the project and include a summary of all potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The summary will also identify areas of controversy and project alternatives evaluated in the EIR. Potential impacts will be identified as follows: Sign�cant and Unavoidab/e Adverse Impacts, Potentially Significant Impacts that Can Be Mitigated to a Less-Than-Sign�cant Level, /mpacts Considered Less-Than-Significant and Beneficial Impacts. In addition, the EIR will identify whether the impacts are Long-Term, Cumulative, or Irreversible. It will also identify any Growth Inducing effects of the project. Mitigation measures recommended for significant impacts will be included in the summary section of the Draft EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program to be included in the Final EIR. The Summary in the Final EIR will also summarize the Mitigation Monitoring Program, adn the comments and responses to the Draft EIR. Inc. Creekside Center EIR, Airoyo Grande 4 EIR SCOPE OF WORK Project Description The EIR will provide a detailed description of the proposed project based on information provided by the City. The project description will include the regional and vicinity location, project objectives, existing improvements on the site, and relevant site and vicinity history. This section will illustrate with plans, photographs, and other graphics, all aspects of the project, including the following: 1) grading and engineering characteristics; 2) infrastructure improvements; and 3) landscaping and design features. The project will be described in terms of its technical, economic and environmental characteristics. The project description will also identify intended uses of the EIR and a list of approvals or permits required. Land Use and Planning The project site is currently occupied by a retail feed store, an office building, two residences, and various outbuildings. The property is surrounded by commercial and residential areas. The land use section will address the projecYs consistency with applicable land use plans and policies based on DD&A's knowledge of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and the local area, in addition to Regulatory Compliance Discussion prepared for the project by the applicant. No conflicts with surrounding uses are anticipated since the proposed commercial and residential development is consistent with adjacent uses. This section wilL Present the historical, present, and proposed uses on the project site and in the surrounding area. • . Address the project's consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and programs, including those in the City's General Plan, Development Code, and relevant agencies guidelines. Analysis of the compatibility of the proposed construction and uses with adjacent land uses. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation The topics identified in the RFP are discussed individually below; these wiil be specifically addressed in the EIR, in addition to all other elements required by CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For each environmental topic, the EIR will include a discussion of existing conditions and will identify potential environmental impacts of the project using significance criteria (i.e. thresholds of significance) to determine the Ievel of impact for each identified issue. The project impact section will present potentially significant impacts, and identify mitigation which avoids or reduces impacts to a less-than-significant level where possible. In order to concentrate the discussion of the EIR on the critical issues required under CEQA while providing a thorough environmental evaluation, we propose to adhere to CEQA section 15128, which states "An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the E/R." Proposal to Prepare the Denise DuHy & Assxiates, Inc. Creekside CenterElR, Arroyo Grande EIR SCOPE OF WORK Cultural Resources The project involves one or more buildings that may be significant historical resources, as well as 3.5 acres that may be sensitive for archeological resources, thus triggering the CEQA requirement to consider the project impacts on cultural resources. An architectural historian report (building and property analysis) and subsequent historic research have aiready been conducted for the site resources. For scoping purposes, this proposal assumes that the research presented in these documents will be sufficient to determine, in coordination with the City, which properties qualify under CEQA as significant historic resources. The DD&A team wiil draw from these reports and a minor amount of additional research to prepare the setting section of the cultural resources chapter, prepare the impacts analysis for the cultural resources section of the EIR, and develop mitigation measures, as necessary. In addition, as described in later sections, Jones and Stokes will assist DD&A with preparation of a discussion of cumulative cultural resources impacts and development of feasible altematives for any significant impacts identified in the cultural resources analysis. Jones & Stokes will assist DD&A by preparing a cultural resources section for the EIR, including the description of the affected environment, the impacts assessment of the preferred project and project alternatives, cumulative impacts, and proposed mitigation measures as appropriate. The determination of whether the property qualifies as a significant historical resource will be based on a review of the existing documentation, minimal additional research, a thorough review of the City's preservation planning documents, and coordination with City planning staff. In order to determine the impacts on archaeological resources, Jones & Stokes wiil conduct a �record search at the Central Coast Information Center and consult with the Native American Heritage Commission to help identify the archeological sensitivity of the property. They will conduct additional research to determine the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic context for potential archeological remains. Unless the property has been previously surveyed for archeological resources, they will conduct a pedestrian survey of the 3.5 acres to identify any surface evidence of archeological deposits. The results of the record search, site survey, historical research, and conclusions regarding the significance of the buildings all will be documented in a technical appendix for the EIR. The setting section of the EIR will be a summary of the technical appendix to allow for a more approachable EIR format. The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) letter also stresses the need to consider documeritation, interpretation, and other mitigation measures that would lessen impacts, even if they would not lower the impacts to a level of less than significant. As discussed above, Susan Lassell recently participated with the OHP representative in a conference presentation on the topic of "Mitigation in the 21st Century," which exp�ored the criteria for determining the feasibility of mitigation measures and explored alternative approaches to mitigating impacts. The EIR wiil apply DD&A and Jones & Stokes' expertise in the area of CEQA impacts analysis and mitigation development to ensure that the Creekside Center EIR meets the most current expectations of the preservation community and review agencies. Proposal to P2pare the Denise Duffy & Assxiates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, Arroyo Grande EIR SCOPE OF WORK Biological Resources The RFP states that the west side of the property is bounded by Tally Ho Creek. Consideration will be given to sensitive plant and animal species within this riparian area. Examples of sensitive and protected habitats include: wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats listed as rare or sensitive by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game. Examples of sensitive and special status plant species include any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species, and any Native Plant Society list 1A, 1 B, and 2 species. Examples of special status wildlife species include any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species, fully protected species, candidate species, and other species given consideration by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Environmental Quality Act. Consultation with state, federal and local agencies that have jurisdiction over or will be affected by the project will be conducted to ensure that all potentially significant biological issues are addressed. These agencies include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game. A site visit will be conducted by DD&A biologists to evaluate the existing environmental conditions at the site, and to prepare an inventory of all plant and wildlife species observed during the site visit. The Biological Resources section of the EIR will: • Describe and identify the affected planUwildlife species on the site and surrounding area (including rare, threatened, and endangered species), and supporting habitat based on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game and other relevant published and unpublished materials. • Identify potential public access and the level of use that is acceptable for long-term maintenance of the surrounding habitat. • Identify native and non-native trees on the site, and potential impacts to these trees. • Identify potential wetlands and riparian areas on the site, and potential impacts to these sensitive areas. • Present appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resburces to a less-than-significant level, if possible. These include, but are not limited to, setbacks, limits on building envelopes, modifications to project siting, location, size, and design, and modifications to grading and landscaping. This scope and budget does not include protocol Ievel plant or wildlife surveys, consultation with any regulatory agencies in the event that threatened, endangered, or special status species are encountered, or a wetland delineation if wetlands are found on the site. Creekside Center EIR, Arroyo Grande Inc. EIR SCOPE OF WORK Water Quality and Drainage The EIR will address the pertinent aspects of the hydrology and water quality setting of the project site and vicinity. This analysis will include a description of the watershed conditions, drainage patterns, and streams within or downstream of the project site. Drainage boundaries wiil be defined, and existing rainfall-runoff characteristics will be presented. Any existing drainage, flooding or streambank erosion/instability problems will be described. Relevant regulations of the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board or other applicable agency will be presented and consultation conducted, if necessary, to ensure up-to-date information on the regulatory setting. The water quality/drainage impacts of the proposed project will be analyzed and presented in accordance with the following approach The potential impacts of hydrologic changes will be identified and described, including on-site and downstream flooding effects, stream erosion, or water supply impacts. Potential changes in surface runoff characteristics and water quality will be analyzed and described. This will consider existing water quality conditions (to the extent that they are known), and the likely changes in the type and amount of runoff pollutants associated with site development. Surtace runoff management practices and design features planned for the project will be taken into account in this analysis. On-site and off-site surFace runoff water quality effects are anticipated to relate primarily to erosion and siltation; other effects from street runoff and site development will also be considered. Mitigation measures will be identified for surface runoff impacts determined to be significant or potentially significant under the proposed or altemative projects. Measures may include such measures as limitations on the scale of development, avoidance of ceRain critical watershed areas, desigNmanagement practices, storm water detention, and implementation of water quality best management practices. Geology and Soils The project site is within a developed area. This scope assumes that the applicant has developed geotechnical recommendations for the project within their grading plan and structural engineering report. Existing reports of the project site and vicinity will be used to describe the geologic setting and to locate potential hazardous geologic features. This scope does not include any new technical analysis of geology and soils hazards. Specifically, this section of the EIR will: Z "fhis scope assumes the existing, applicant-submitted drainage reports (the Grading and Drainage Plan, Floodway sections, and Regulatory Compliance Discussion of the Flood Ordinance) provide sufficient project and site information to identify the potential on- and off-site impacts and that standard agency guidance can constitute mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level. Proposal to Prepare the Denise Dufly 6 Associates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, Arroyo Grande EIR SCOPE OF WORK • Describe the geologic conditions/setting, including soil, sediment, rock types and characteristics, and structural features such as bedding, joints, faults, and landslides. • Describe the site soil conditions and engineering properties, based on existing site- specific reports, if available. Address regional seismicity, including active faults, maximum estimated ground shaking, future earthquake probabilities, and resulting possible damage. • Discuss the amount of land disturbance for the project. • Assess on- and off-site geologiGsoils hazards due to natural or project-related actions, such as erosion, landslides, slope stability, liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential compacfion, and seismic hazards. Identify appropriate mitigation measures, based on the recommendations of the soils repoR, to stabilize landslide conditions, if any, to protect structures from earthquake damage, and to alleviate erosion, including best management practices to prevent erosion, siltation and dust during construction, and permanently maintained landscaping, and revegetation. Public Services, Safety & Utilities The EIR wili describe public services and utilities serving the. existing site, in accordance with the requirements in the RFP. DD&A will contact all relevant service providers, City staff, and state and local agencies to obtain information on fire protection and emergency access requirements, police protection, schools, parks and recreation, libraries, public health services, water supply, wastewater disposal, solid waste, and utilities in the project area. The EIR will quantify the increase in demand, based on information from the project applicant and service providers, and will evaluate the ability of existing services and utilities to serve the project, focusing on potential constraints. Mitigation will be identified for any significant or potentially significant impacts on public services and utilities. Traffic and Circulation The traffic and circulation section of the EIR wiil be prepared in conjunction with Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) based on the results of a traffic report provided by the app�cants. This scope has been developed per the Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines in effect at the time of this writing. [It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Study guidelines are currently being updated, and the changes are anticipated to be adopted by the City Council in November 2001. These changes may require adjustments to this scope.] The following actions will be completed in order to adequately evaluate the potential impacts of the project: A site visit will be conducted to the site itself and the study intersections, in conjunction with Uaffic count data collection. Deficiencies in operations at the study intersections will be noted. Special attention will be directed to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic facilities. Proposal to Prepare the uen�se Creekside Cente� EIR, Arroyo Grande E/R SCOPE OF WORK The existing traffic study will be reviewed by ATE. ATE will submit written comments to the City. It is assumed that if the existing traffic study requires revisions or additional analysis, that the engineer or firm responsible for preparing the traffic study for the applicants will provide a response or revised report that is adequate to prepare the CEQA traffic and circulation section. DD&A, with assistance by ATE, wiil prepare the traffic section of the EIR. Issues to be addressed will include baseline traffic volumes, project trip generation, project trip distribution assumptions, cumulative traffic forecast levels of service calculations, and project mitigation measures reported in the traffic study. The Traffic and Circulation section of the EIR will: Describe the existing roadway network, traffic, and circulation conditions in the project area. Discuss other transportation systems and services available in the project area, including public transit. Present the trip generation, assignment, and distribution for traffic generated by the proposed project. Describe the results of the traffic analysis for intersections and roadways for peak periods under existing, background, project, and cumulative conditions. Identify traffic impacts of the project based on the City's standards, and analyze the adequacy of proposed site access and circulation. Present mitigation measures for any significant traffic impacts of the project. Air Quality Air quality impacts will be addressed through an analysis to be conducted by DD&A Project MBnager, Alison Imamura, who has a Masters Degree in Air Quality Engineering. This section will: Describe the existing local atmospheric wnditions relative to climate and air pollution, historical air quality data for the vicinity, and sources of air pollution in the area. Sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) in the project area will be identified. Discuss the relevant regulatory provisions, criteria, and applicabie thresholds of the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) and state and federal ambient air quality standards. 3 1t is anticipated that the existing Vaffic study includes the following: (7 ) cumulative Vaffic volumes from projected traffic from approved and anticipated long-term development fn the vicinity of the site, including development in the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande; (2) intersection operations and channelization warrants; and (3) improvements required to serve cumulative devetopment. P�oposal to Prepare the Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, A�royo Grande 10 EIR SCOPE OF WORK • Discuss short-term air quality impacts during construction, resulting from dust and exhaust emissions from equipment and vehicles, based on information on the construction process from the project applicant. • Conduct an air quality analysis (using the most recent available version of the URBEMIS model and/or CALINE carbon monoxide model, as necessary), in accordance with guidelines established by the SLOAPCD, to determine whether project emissions could exceed District standards and thresholds, including locaily and regionally. • Review for consistency with the Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County. • Describe the projecYs conformance with applicable air quality standards, and provide mitigation for any potentially significant or significant impacts. Noise The most significant noise sources in the project area are due to traffic on surrounding roadways. The noise section wilL• • Describe the existing noise conditions of the site and surrounding area, and identify nearby sensitive noise receptors. • Describe applicabie noise standards and policies in the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Noise Element. • Assess noise impacts, based on the compatibility of the site for residential uses with respect to City guidelines and standards. Significant noise impacts would occur if either exterior or interior noise levels are projected to exceed those considered normally acceptable for residential development in the guidelines. Note: this scope does not include a technical noise analysis. • Assess noise impacts during construction activities, based on information on the construction process and schedule from the project applicant, which could adversely affect nearby sensitive land uses or violate applicable standards or ordinances. • Identify mitigation measures for potentially significant or significant noise irripacts. Cumulative /mpacts In accordance with CEQA requirements, the EIR will analyze potentially significant cumulative impacts anticipated from development of the project combined with projects that are proposed, planned, and/or undernray within the City and vicinity. The analysis will be based on a list of proposed or anticipated projects in the area, to be provided by the City. Proposal to Prepare fhe Denise Duf(y & Associates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, Arroyo Grande 11 ' EIR SCOPE OF WORK Alternatives In accordance with CEQA, the EIR needs to address a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasiblely meet the project objectives and potentially avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts associated with the project. DD&A will consult with City staff to determine up to three (3) feasible alternatives. The "No Project" alternative, a smaller (a reduced density) project, one or more alternate site designs (i.e., historic preservation designs), and alternate site locations or existing structure relocation alternatives may be considered depending upon the outcome of the EIR analysis. All aitematives will be discussed both quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of their impacts and their effectiveness in addressing identified sigrlificant adverse project impacts. This section will identify and discuss the altemative deemed to be environmentally superior per the requirements of CEQA section 15126.6(e)(2). This evaluation will be based on a comparative analysis of the recommended alternatives. Historic preservation alternatives (including potentially evaluating relocation of the existing on-site structures to another site) are Iikely to be required. In response to the notice of preparation (NOP), both the Office of Historic Preservation and the local group "Preserve the Village" requested that the EIR consider at least two preservation alternatives. The DD&A team has considerable experience developing feasible alternatives that reduce the impacts to cultural resources. If appropriate, the DD&A team will work with the City to identify feasible alternatives that meet the project description while reducing impacts to historic and archeological resources. This proposal does not include architectural design or detailed design of alternatives; however conceptual designs will be discussed qualitatively. If the City desires, DD&A will solicit qualified architects to prepare feasibility evaluations of preservation alternatives or detailed drawings of alternatives at an additional cost. If the EIR determines that the project would significantly impact historic resources as defined by CEQA, and the City agrees that the preservation alternative is preferable, detailed alternative site design should be prepared by the applicant for further consideration by the architectural historian (in this case, Susan Lassell of Jones & Stokes) and subsequently by the City. Other CEQA-Required Sections The major environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR are described and highlighted above. In addition to these and the remaining CEQA checklist environmental topics, the EIR will include other CEQA-required sections, as follows: ' • Growth-Inducing Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Impacts • Irreversible Effects • References • EIR Authors & Consultants Proposa/ to Prepare the Denise Duf(y & Assxiates, lnc. Creekside Center EIR, Arroyo Grande 12 EIR SCOPE OF WORK 4. Screencheck Draft EIR After the City's review of the ADEIR, DD&A will revise the document based on the City's comments. DD&A assumes that the City will provide only one set of written comments on the ADEIR, either in a letter form or on a single copy of the ADEIR. DD&A will submit one (1) revised document, the screencheck Draft EIR, to the City for a final check prior to reproduction of the public review Draft EIR for circulation. 5. Draft EIR Upon City approval, DD&A will submit 40 copies of the Draft EIR, along with one electronic copy in the City's preferred electronic file format, to the City for public distribution. DD&A assumes the sc�eencheck DEIR will only require minor changes to produce the DEIR. 6. Final EIR Following the 45-day public and agency review period, DD&A will meet with the City to review the comments received on the Draft EIR and discuss strategies for preparing responses. DD&A will prepare a Draft Amendment to the Draft EIR, containing the following: • List of individuals and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR • Copies of letters received on the Draft EIR . Written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR • Revisions to the EIR teM, as necessary � • Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program � DD&A will submit 15 copies of this Draft Amendment to the City for review. The document will then be revised per the City's comments and 40 copies, along with one electronic copy of the Amendment, will be delivered to the Ciry for public distribution. This Amendment, in conjunction with the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR. [This proposal assumes 68 hours of DD&A planning staff time for responding fo comments and preparing the Final EIR, as shown in the attached budget. DD&A reserves the right to review the public comments when available and submit a request for additional compensation should additional issues arise outside of the scope of work requiring additional technical response, or should the anticipated number of comments or work required to complete the responses exceed fhat estimafed.] � 7. Mitigation Monitoring Program DD&A will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) in accordance with CEQA. The MMP will identify responsibility, timing, and reporting for each mitigation measure identified in the EIR, in accordance with City and CEQA guidelines on form and content. Propasal to Prepare the Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, Anoyo Grande 13 EIR SCOPE OF WORK 8. Resolution/Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations [Optional] As an optional task, DD&A can prepare the resolution(s) with findings certifying the FEIR and approving the proposed project based on an example of findings provided by the City. A draft of the �esolution(s) with findings will be submitted to the City for review. DDBA will incorporate City comments once, prior to finalizing the resolution(s). If necessary, based on the presence of impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level, DD&A can also provide a draft of the required statement of overriding considerations. It is recommended that the City attorney review the findings and statement of overriding considerations for their legality. DD&A will provide one (1) hard copy and an electronic copy of the final resolution(s) and findings to the City for use in project consideration documents. 9. Attend Meetings This proposal includes the attendance by the DD&A project manager at a total of three meetings, as follows: a kick-off meeting at the City with staff and subconsultants, and two public hearings (one Planning Commission and one City Council). In addition, this scope includes attendance by Susan Lassell and Noelle Storey, Jones & Stokes at one meeting each (site visiUkick-off meeting), and by Scott Schell, Associated Transportation Engineers at the kick-off meeting and rivo public hearings. Additional attendance by DD&A or subconsultants would be billed per meeting as follows: Alison Imamura, Project Manager, Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Susan Lassell, Architectural Historian, Jones and Stokes ....... Scott Schell, Traffic Engineer, Associated Transportation Engineer 10. Public Noticing . $900 $1000 . $600 DD&A will complete all CEQA public notice mailings, such as the Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability and Notice of Determination, and will coordinate placing applicable public notices in the local newspaper. This scope assumes the project applicant will provide mailing address labels and an electronic file of the addresses for individuals and organizations within 500 feet of the property and those that have requested notice about the proposed project and environmental document preparation. If requested, DD&A will complete noticing for up to three public hearings. Additional hearing notices will be provided at an additional cost. No posting of notices on-site is provided within this scope of work. A copy of all notice documents sent will be provided to the City. Proposal to Prepare the Denise DuKy & Associates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, Arroyo Grande 14 Section III. SCHEDULE SCHEDULE A tentative schedule for the EIR is presented below. Please note that completion of the Draft EIR for public review is dependent on the receipt of all project information upon authorization to proceed. The schedule is also dependent on the City's review time and number of comments received during the 45-day EIR circulation period. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Case No. 01-001/Conditional Use Permit No. 01-002 (Creekside Center) Tentative EIR Schedule Task Weeks Sample Schedule from mid-November kick-off meeting Prepare Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) 9 January 17, 2002 Review of ADEIR by City 2 January 31, 2002 Revise ADEIR /Prepare Screencheck Draft EIR (DEIR) 1 February 7, 2002 Prepare DEIR upon City approval 1(90 days from kick- February 14, 2002 off meeting) DEIR 45-Day Review Period 6.5 March 31, 2002 Prepare Draft Amendment �(Response to Comments) and 3 Aprii 22, 2002 Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) • Review of Draft Amendment and MMP by City 2 May 6, 2002 Revise Draft Amendment/Prepare Final EIR 1(45 days after public May 13, 2002 review period ends) Circulate Response to Comments document (10 days) 1.5 May 23, 2002 Prepare Findings for City Use (optional task) t May 30, 2002 Certification of EIR — " TOTAL ESTIMATED WEEKS 28 Schedule may be adjusted consistent with City schedule after review by Staff and Consultants. Please note that the EIR schedule does not account for unanticipated delays outside DD&A's conUol. These detays include failure to receive all project-related information in a timely manner, delays in administrative and screencheck reviews b the Ci , continuances of ublic hearin s, or similar events. Creekside Center E/R, Arroyo Grande 15 lnc. Se ction IV. GRAPHICS Using our complete in-house graphics capabilities, DD&A will prepare relevant figures (including maps, plans, photos, and illustrations) for each section of the EIR. It is assumed that the applicant will provide updated site plans and other relevant graphics, such as grading and drainage plans, for incorporation into the EIR. Key graphics in the technical studies will be used in the body of the EIR as well; each technical study, complete with graphics, will be appended to the EIR. The foilowing figures are expected to be included: • Regional Map • Vicinity Map . Site Plan • View from • View from • Vegetation Communities. • Tree Removal/Repiacement Plan • On-site Water Resources (streams and wetlands) • Regional Faults • On-site Soils • Regional Locations of Public Services • Street System and Study Intersection Locations • other Traffic and Circulation graphics • Nearby Sensitive Receptors • General Plan Land Use (from recently updated General Plan) • Cumulative Projects If available, DD&A will present an aerial photograph showing existing site features and surrounding land uses. DD&A will consult with the City to determine if additional figures are necessary. Proposal to Prepare the Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, Anoyo Grande 16 Attachment D Proposal for an Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Project Cost Schedule for Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Labor Page One of Two e'� J � u � a r� sk o` Initlation/Finalize Scope 4 Progress Reports Administrative Draft EIR (intro, nmary, land use, project scription, altematives, other CEl]A :tions) 10 Cuitural Resources (see also nes 8 Stokes)b 6 ,Biological Resources 1 TreffidCirculation (see also Assoc. �nsp. Eng.) �Othertopicalsections � � 1 Editting, QA/QA, production Screen Check Drak EIR . 1 Draft EIR Resoond to Comments/FEIR 6 Public N m o• �• � q �� m 3� N' � q ` q 1 � � � i — � a+ Q g � 1 �� i 33 , O q r V �R 3,�� "'As an optional task, DD&A can prepare draft resolution with findings (and potential statement of overriding considerations) for an additional fee. Proposal for an Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Project Budget Summary Page Two of Two Assumptions for Reproduction Costs for reports: color billed at 5 copies of Administrative Draft EIR �$25/copy 40 copies of Draft EIR (a� $25/copy 42 copies of Fnal EIR (o� 520/copy Miscellaneous copies $125 $1,000 $840 $100 Section VI. PROJECT TEAM ROLES AND QUALIFICATIONS DD&A, in conjunction with the subconsultants, will provide the analysis necessary for environmental review and documentation of the proposed development, based on work experience in the City of Arroyo Grande and San Luis Obispo County, and expertise on environmental issues affecting the area. The services outlined in this proposal are based on the availability of identified staff to complete the work tasks presented. All members of the DD&A team have committed to providing the staff time and resources required to complete the scope of work in accordance with the schedule presented. The roles and responsibilities of individuals on the DD&A team are presented in more detail below. Resumes for key project staff are included below. Relevant project experience lists and references are found in Section VII. DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Prime Environmenfal Consultant As a land use planning and environmental consulting firm, DD&A provides services in site planning, management of development projects, governmental studies, and environmental assessments. DD&A is qualified in all phases of project development, particularly the preparation of environmental documentation in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. As prime consultant, DD&A will oversee the preparation of the EIR and technical reports, manage the work of subconsultants . Denise Duffy, Principal of DD&A, will provide quality assurance, technical oversight, and quality control review. Ms. Duffy has been in the field of land use and environmental planning since 1977. As founder and president of the company, Ms. Duffy has extensive experience in environmental analysis, project management, entitlement processing, and inter-agency coordination. Alison Imamura, Senior Planner, will act as project manager, overseeing the preparation of the EIR, managing the study efforts of DD8�A staff and subsconsultants, including schedules and budgets, In addition, she will prepare the air quality analysis and provide technical oversight of all sections. Since starting at DD&A, Ms. Imamura has managed the preparation of dozens of EIRs, initial studies, and environmental assessments (under CEQA and NEPA) forjurisdictions within the Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz County area. Many of her major projects have involved infiil redevelopment and rehabilitation of historic or potentially historic properties. In addition, she has assisteA local, state and federal permit acquisition, entitlements processing, and environmental monitoring and repoRing. With her air quality engineering expertise, she also prepares the air quality assessments for DD&A environmental documents. Her long range planning experience includes serving as project planner for the California State University Monterey Bay Master Plan EIR and for the City of Gilroy General Plan, and as project manager for the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. Ms. Imamura manages numerous roadway improvement projects, coordinating with local Proposal to Prepare the Creekside Cenfer EIR, Arroyo Grande 20 PROJECT TEAM ROLES AND QUALIFICATIONS agencies and Caltrans, and is assisting with regional transportation planning projects. She is involved in entitlements and permitting efforts for major water facilities projects and land development proposals. Recently, she has acted as a contract planner for the City of Seaside in their efforts toward approval of a residential project for annexation of lands from the former Fort Ord area of the Monterey Peninsula. Josh Harwayne, Associate Environmental Scientlst, will provide the third party review of the existing biological reports prepared by the applicant, conduct a site visit, contact regulatory agencies, and prepare a report providing review of the adequacy of the existing biological documents. Mr. Harwayne specializes in botany, wetland evaluation and restoration, and serves as project manager for the Natural Resources Division at DD&A. He brings several years of experience at the Romberg-Tiburon Wetlands Research Laboratory and has previous expehise in botany and freshwater, estuarine and riparian wetland restoration with Wetlands Research. David Keegan, Wildlife Biologisf, will assist in the third party review of the existing biological reports prepared by the applicant, conduct a site visit, contact regulatory agencies, and assist in preparation of a report providing review of the adequacy of the existing biological documents and responding to the issues raised in the letter from EcoSLO. Mr. Keegan has a strong background in wildlife biology, with a wide variety of professional experiences to draw upon. His education included an extensive personalized curriculum emphasizing advanced biology and included: Entomology, Herpetology, Mammalogy, Plant Ecology, Plant Taxonomy, and several Ornithology courses. Mr. Keegan has been invoived in the field studies of several special status species, and works closely with resource and regulatory agencies such as the USFWS and CDFG. The above personnel will serve as the primary staff assigned to the EIR for the proposed project. Other in-house staff may provide additional assistance as necessary to produce the EIR. The subconsultanYs responsibilities and key staff members are described below. STOKES Jones & Stok est� services and h cc reports throughou National Environmei project work but alsp Deskbook: A Step.-6� Mastering NEPfI`.• A Federal and Califon fi 1970, provides clients with a full range of environmental consulting more than 4,000 environmental and natural resource studies and :rn United States. The firm offers special expertise in CEQA and ;y Act (NEPA) compliance and is well known, not only through our our CEQA and NEPA classes and publirations, including the CEQA $'de on How to Comply with the Califomia Environmental QualifyAct, �-�tep Approach, and Wetlands Regulation: A Complete Guide to �am . Jones & Stokes' Cultural Resources specialists that will be providing sert�ices related to this projeCt include Susan Lassell, Architectural Historian, and Noelle Storey, Archaeologist who have expertT�n all areas of cultural resources inventory, evaluation, and m�gement. NOTE: The complete proposal is on file at the Community Development Department. P�oposal to Prepa�e the Denise Duffy 8 Associates, Inc. Creekside Center EIR, A�royo Grande 21 _ EXHIBIT B )enise Duffy & Associates, Inc. PLANNWG AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING January 2, 2002 Rob Strong City of Airoyo Grande P.O. Box 550 tlrroyo Grande, CA 93421 SUBJECT: Revised Scope and Budget for the Creekside Center Project EIR (January) Dear Mr. Strong: Enclosed is a revised budget and amendment to our scope of work for the Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center Project as you requested , Specifically, we have changed our historical consultant from Jones and Stokes as presented previously to Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation,Inc.and I have attached their scope of work and budget for your information (Attachment 1). As shown in the revised budget tables (Attachment 2), the total budget resulting from the change of the historical consultant is $64,987. Please note that the changes to the scope of work described in my le�ter dated December 5, 2001 (Attachment 3) are also still applicable with the excepHon of the changes to Jones and Stokes scope of work changes. As stated above, the historical consultanYs scope is provided in full in Attachment 1. In addition, the historic consultant has requested specific items to be forwarded to them see page 3 of Attachment 1. Flease have the applicant submit these items to the Chattel and copy them to me. Thank you again for your continued interest in our firm for this project. Please call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, DEPTISE.DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. C��'""�i Alison Imamura Project Manager Attachments 1: Chattel Historic Preservation Consulting Services Proposal 2: Revised Budget Summary Sheets 3: December 5, 2001 Revised Scope of Work ��V�� Tel: (831) 373-4341 �AN � 7 2��Z Fax: (831) 373-14I7 - (`,� j y QF AnR0Y0 GRANDE 94� Cass 5treet, 5uite s COMMUNITY DE`•lELO'MENT DE?T. Monterey, CA 93940 )enise Duffy & Associates, Inc. PIANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING December 5, 2001 Rob Strong City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 ��x � � DFC 1 u Z^!'i v� I�� l7' ,: i:'i�l`:�V L.'`;r�iV{)i= ':�Q?�'�A�)NIT\ r' ��[�. SUBJECl': Revised Srnpe and Budget for the Creekside Center Project EIR Dear Mr. Strong: Enclosed is a revised budget and amendment to our scope of work for the Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center Project as you requested last week. The budget tables are provided in their revised version. The total budget resulting from these revisions is now $63,991 instead of $74,921 as provided in our previous proposal. The key areas in which the level of effort was reduced are as follows: • Subconsultants' levels of effort were reduced. — Specifically, Jones and Stokes reduced the'v budget. Susan Lassell will be assigning most research and report draRing to a junior staff person. She will remain as the client contact, and provide dceument preparation oversight, and will attend one hearing aod one meeting as included in the original proposal. - ATE eliminated public hearing attendance from their scope of work. Any request for attendance at a public hearing by ATE will cost approximately $600. " • Project Progress Reports will be prepared by a DD&A Assistant Planner rather than by the project manager. - _ . • Level of effort allocated for responding to City and public comments on the documents was reduced and contingency included to specify the amount of effort that will be provided. Assumes no new analysis will be necessary, and minimal controversy and difficulry in responding to Ciry and public comments. • Hourly rates for administrative and assistant planner/scientist level staff were discounted compared to the previous proposal. • Hours allocated to DD&A staff were reduced, in generat, assuming that the issues other than historic have been adequately resolved and addressed in existing documenu. Thanlc you again for your interest in our firm. Please call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC. �Ot%„ 1 Alison Imamura Project Manager Enclosures: Revised Budge[ Summary Shee[s Tel: (831) 373-4341 Fax: (831) 373-1417 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 Monterey, CA 93940 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C Proposal for an Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center Project Revised Cost Sehedule for Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Labor January 2, 2002 Page One of Two NOTES: (7 ) As optional tasks, DDBA can prepare notices, dreft resolution with findings (and patential statement of - overtiding wnsideretions) for an additianal fee. � , (2) Total of three meetingslF�earings, incl. 2 staff at kickoH meeting. (3) Assumes comments on Administrative D2ft will� nat exceed 6 pages typed or will he provided as direct ec�lts on one copy of the dacument � (4) Assumes comments on Screen Check Dreft will not exceed 2 pages ryped or will be provided as direct ec�its on one copy of the document. (5) Assumes that response to comments will Wke no longer than the time alloted �erein. DD&A reserves thA right to review comments and request additional compensaGOn shoulG the responses require more staff time than provided for in lhis task. 92�Si�d NIWatl 30NFi21�J OJ.OiJbti�01 LS8£-�bS-S08'13WJCJ8NOI,��WOa� 0S�9S 2002-LT-NFif EXHIBIT C Proposal for an Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center Project Revised Sudget Summary January 2, 2002 Page Two of Two " See Attachment 1 to the January 2 2002 letter from Alison Imamura to Rob Strong for assumptions, "' Peer review will be provided only; no hearing attendance or additional analysis is included. The trel scope of work assumes the applicant's Vaftic study is adequate as required by the Ciry and other local agencies. � 9c�9i�d NIWOti 30NtlZ19 OA021'JH�Ol LS8£-£bS-S08 - 13W'JHJBNO.l1�W0?J� SS�9T �c00Z-LS-Ntll ' Assumptians for Repraduc6on Caslslorreparts: . 5 wpies of Adminis�ntive DnR EIR (� 525/wpy ��ZS 40 wpiee ol OraR EIR � 525lcopy $'I,000 45 wpies (5 review drak and 40 fina1) of Amendmenl W Ihe Draft EIR � 520/copy 5900 Miscellaneous copies $100 ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT C Proposal for an Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center Project Revised Cost Schedule for Denise Duffy 8 Associates, Inc. Labor January 2, 2002 Page One of Two NOTES: (1) As optional tasks, DD&A can prepare notices, d2ft resolution with fi�dings (and potential statement of overriding wnsideraGons) for an additional fee. (2) Total of [hree meeqngslhearings, incl. 2 staff at kickoH meeting. (3) Assumes comments on Administrative Draft will not exceed 6 pages typed or will he proviCed as direct ec�lts on one copy ol the document � (4) Assumes comments on Screen Check Draft will not exceed 2 pages ryped or will be provided as direct ec�its on one wpy of the document. (5) Assumes that response W comments will Wke no longer than the time alloted herein. DDSA reserves thA right to review comments and request additional compensaGon shoultl the responses require more staff time than provided for in this Wsk. 9Z�Si:d NIWOH 30NtiJ�J 01,021ati:01 LSB£-£bS-S08 �3Wat1�8N0A��W021� 0S�9L c'00Z-Lti-NtJt EXHIBIT C Proposal for an Environmental Impact Report for the Creekside Center Project Revised Budget Summary January 2, 2002 Page Two of Two 5 wpies of AdminislraGve 02ft EIR � S25/eopy 40 wpias of OraR EIR � SYS/mpy 45 wpies (5 review d/ah and 40 final) of Amendmenl to lhe DraR EIR � 320lcopy Miscellanaous copies fl wlor bilied at 31/oaael su6fotal 3125 S'I,000 $900 $100 •• See Attachment 1 to the Janua 2 2002 letter from Alison Imamure to Rob Stron for assum trons "` Peer review will be provided only; no hearing altendance ar additional analysis is included. The tra scope of work assumes the applicanPs Vaiflc study is adequate as required by the City and other local agencies. 92�91�d NIWOH 30NH:J�J O1,OJ21b�01 LSB£-£bS-S08 �3WbN�BNOA�:W021� T5�9ti Z002-LT-NF1f �' Assumptions for Reproductian Casts for reporb: � ATTACHMENT 3 APPLICANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of January, 2002, by and between the City of Arroyo Grande, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and D. B. & M. Property, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed with the City a request for approval of a proposed project consisting of Conditional Use Permit Application No. 01-001 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 01-002, known as the "Creekside Center project" WHEREAS, the City has determined that, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and that the Applicant is solely responsible for all costs incurred in preparation of the Analysis, a project EIR (the "analysis") must be prepared, printed and distributed prior to consideration of the project; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it must engage the service of a qualified Consultant to perform the necessary work in the preparation of said EIR for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, it is understood by the Applicant that the project hereinabove identified is subject to review and decision by advisory bodies after _ _ _ substantial progress on "the analysis"; that staff's recommendations are related to but independent of the conclusions reached in "the analysis"; that the nature of the factors to be considered by staff in the review of the project is such that recommendations to the decision-makers cannot be formalized until the Final EIR is completed and may in fact be different from the conclusions reached in the analysis; and that the final decision on the project will be considered until the Final EIR is determined adequate and in conformance with all relevant laws by the City's decision-making authority; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. Consultant The City shall engage the firm of Denise Duffy and Associates, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant" pursuant to the City/Consultant Agreement, entered into within 30 days after the date of this Agreement, to perform the necessary work in the preparation of the required EIR for the project identified hereinabove. 2. Effective Date This Agreement shall become effective upon execution thereof by the parties hereto and shall terminate upon satisfaction of the terms and 2 conditions herein and following final payment under contract pursuant to the City/Consultant agreement. 3. Work Proaram & Schedule It is understood that preparation of the EIR shall conform to the approved work program and schedule attached to the City/Consultant Agreement, including Exhibit "A" thereof and incorporated herein by reference, and may require: (a) Written reports; and (b) Such other data as may be necessary to analyze properly the proposed project. 4. Pavment to the Citv for Consultant Services A. The Consultant and the City under the City/Consultant Agreement, and the Applicant and the City under this Agreement agree that upon execution of this Agreement, the Applicant shall deposit an initial installment of 50% of the estimated total cost of Consultant contract in the approximate amount of 532,500. 3 B. That the Applicant will make two additional installments of 25% of the estimated total cost of consultant contract each in the approximate amount of 516,250 when required by the City for the purpose of funding progress payments to the Consultant, but in no event later than two (2) months and four (4) months from the date of this agreement to insure that funds are available to the City for Consultant services in a timely manner in accordance with the City/Consultant contract. C. The total fee of approximately sixty five thousand dollars (S65,000) is the entire consideration to be paid by the City to the Consultant for all of the services performed by the Consultant, unless the City and Consultant determine that it is necessary to modify the Contract to provide for extra services. D. In the event of termination or determination by the City and Consultant that extra services are required to complete the required EIR, the Applicant shall be notified and within ten (10) days shall make any additional 0 . _ _ __ . deposits to cover actual City/Consultant contract costs and additional administrative fees associated thereto. 5. Pavment to the Citv for Citv Services In addition to the ApplicanYs reimbursement to City for Consultant's actual and necessary services, the Applicant shall pay an administrative fee of fifteen percent (15%) of the Consultants contract to be deposited in three (3) installments: A) 50% of the estimated contract cost, approximately four thousand eight hundred seventy-five dollars (54875), within seven (7) working days after the date of execution, B) 25% of the fee, approximately two thousand four hundred thirty seven dollars and fifty cents (52437.50) within two (2) months of the Agreement by the parties hereto. C) The final 25% of the fee, two thousand four hundred thirty- seven dollars and fifty cents (52437.50►, or balance of the administrative fee charged by the City for costs and expenses incurred by the City for processing, reviewing, preparing comments for ConsultanYs preparation of the EIR, or performing any other work in connection therewith. G� D) Applicant further agrees that if at any time it becomes necessary to increase the Consultants work program and associated fees for additional professional services, a 15% fee shall be added to the Consultants additional services fees and shall be paid to the City within ten (10) working days of execution of additional services agreement between City and Consultant. 6. Indeoendent Contractor It is understood that the Consultant shall be an independent contractor of the City. The Applicant agrees to provide the Consultant with information needed to perform all work thereon as the Consultant deems necessary to complete the EIR. It is agreed that the Applicant at no time will interfere with the Consultant in the performance of such work or attempt to influence such Consultant during the course of this investigation and report. In the instance of written correspondence between the Applicant and the Consultant, the sender shall provide the City a copy of all such correspondence. 7. Hold Harmless The Applicant hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses (including 0 reasonable attorneys' fees), damages, recoveries, deficiencies or liabilities that may arise, result from or be attributable to the Applicant's obligation to reimburse City for all fees and costs paid by City to Consultant attributable to Consultant's preparation of the EIR or the failure of the Applicant to comply with any other term or condition of this Agreement. 8. Governina Law Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement which cannot be amicably settled without court action shall be litigated in a state court for San Luis Obispo County, California. The rights and obligations of the parties and all interpretations and performance of this Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California. 9. Non-Assianment Neither party shall assign, transfer or sub-contract this Agreement nor their rights or duties under this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. 10. Amendments Any changes to this Agreement requested either by the City or Applicant may only be effected if mutually agreed upon in writing by duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended or any rights of a party to it waived except by such a writing. 7 11. Bindina Uoon Successors This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors in interest, assigns, legal representatives, and heirs. 12. Entire Aareement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Applicant and City with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all previous negotiations, proposals, commitments, writings, advertisements, publications, and understandings of any nature whatsoever unless expressly included in this Agreement. 13. AoolicanYs Leaal Authoritv Each individual executing or attesting this Agreement on behalf of Applicant hereby covenants, warrants, and represents: (i) that he or she is duly authorized to execute or attest and deliver this Agreement on behalf of such entity: and (ii) that this Agreement is binding upon such entity: and (iii) that Applicant is a duly organized and legally existing entity in good standing in the State of California. 14. Termination This Agreement may be immediately terminated by the City upon written notice to the Applicant if Applicant fails to comply with any or all of the terms of this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in this section, the City will request Consultant to stop work on the project. Upon termination, the City will determine what amounts are due and owing to the Consultant and the City for work performed prior to termination and return any remaining funds received from the Applicant to the Applicant. If there are not sufficient funds received from the Applicant to pay Consultant and City for work performed prior to termination, Applicant shall immediately remit the balance due to City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. � CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY APPLICANT D. B. & M. PROPERTY, LLC, RICHARD DEBLAUW 10 9.a. TO: FROM: BY: MEMORANDUM CITY COUNCIL ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KELLY HEFFERNON X N' ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE CONSTRUCT A 60-UNIT 3,000 SQUARE FOOT CAMINO MERCADO; DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 PERMIT CASE NO. 01-010 TO SENIOR APARTMENT COMPLEX AND SENIOR RECREATION CENTER; 579 CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration, instructing the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. Staff further recommends the Council: 2. Review the attached Memorandum from Rob Strong to the City Council dated January 22, 2002 regarding affordable housing assistance allocation for the proposed project (Attachment 1) and authorize housing funding assistance in the amount of $40,700. 3. Review the�attached Memorandum from Dan Hernandez to the City Council dated December 19, 2001 regarding the applicanYs request for park fee waivers (Attachment 2) and authorize a fee waiver of $3,985 of the Community Center Impact Fees and fee credit of $39,671.84 for Park Development Fees. FUNDING: Per the attached Memorandums, staff recommends financial assistance and fee waivers in the following amounts: 1. Affordable Housing Assistance Allocation of $40,700; 2. Fee waiver of $3,985 of the Community Center Impact Fees; and 3. Fee waiver of $39,671.84 of the Park Development Fees. The total recommended amount of financial assistance from these funds is $84,356.84. CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 22, 2002 CUP 01-010 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: The City Council considered this project on December 11, 2001 (reference Attachment 3 for staff report). After discussing issues of traffic impacts, deed restrictions to ensure senior housing affordability, architectural compatibility with surrounding development, financial assistance for affordable housing and fee waivers, Council continued the public hearing to January 22, 2001 for staff to prepare policy language regarding financial assistance and fee waivers. The attached Memorandums from Rob Strong and Dan Hernandez provide an analysis and rationale for proportional financial assistance and park fee waivers. Condition of Approval No. 15 has been added to the CUP Resolution requiring the applicant to enter into a funding agreement with the City describing the purpose and terms of financial assistance from the City's Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund, if so directed by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. An initial study was prepared and based on this analysis, a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and noticed for public review. No comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration and a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the City Council to review. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Approve the Planning Commission and staff's recommendation and adopt the resolution; 2. Modify the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the resolution; 3. Take tentative action to deny the project application and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council action; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. If the Council selects alternative 3, staff will return with the appropriate resolution at a later meeting. Attachments: Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 Exhibit "A": Conditions of Approval Exhibits "B1 — 65": Project Plans 2. 3. 4. Memo from Rob Strong to City Council Regarding Affordable Housing Assistance Allocation (January 22, 2001) Memo from Daniel Hernandez to City Council Regarding Request for Fee Waivers of Park Development, Park Improvement and Community Center (December 19, 2001) December 11, 2001 City Council Staff Report (less attachments) Initial Study Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Soils Report (dated 10/04/01) APCD Referral Response (dated 11/01/01) Traffic Impact Analysis (dated 8/31/01) Biological Survey (dated 5/28/99) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-010, LOCATED AT 579 CAMINO MERCADO, APPLIED FOR BY CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, INC. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010, filed by Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. for construction of a 60-unit senior apartment complex and a 3,000 square foot senior recreation center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on this application in accordance with the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Ciry Council has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the•City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the Professional Commercial (P-C) District of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) pursuant to Section 16.16.040 of the Development Code, and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. 2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses. 3. The site is suitable proposed because all would be provided. for the type and intensity of use or development that is the necessary easements, circulation, parking and setbacks 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure the public health and safety. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because the proposed project would not create adverse environmental impacts. Architectural Review Findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Architectural Review Guidelines for the City of Arroyo Grande. 2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code. 3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project. 4. The general appearance of the proposed building is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because the size and design are consistent with other buildings in the vicinity. 5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City. 6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. Department of Fish and Game Required Findings of Exemption: 1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. 2. Based on the initial study, a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared for public review. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related materials is located at City Hall in the Community Development Department - 3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering the record as a whole, the City Council adopts the mitigated negative declaration and finds that there is no substantial evidence of any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this project. Further, the Council finds that said Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration, instructs the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approves Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 On motion by Council Member , seconded by Council Member and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of 2001. __ _ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 MICHAEL A. LADY, MAYOR ATTEST: KELLY WETMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN�ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01- 010 Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. 579 Camino Mercado COMMUN/TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS This approval authorizes the construction of a 60-unit senior apartment complex and a 3,000 square foot senior recreation center. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. 3. This application shall automatically expire on January 22, 2004 unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of December 11, 2001 and marked Exhibits "B1 — 65". Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans, except as specifically modified by these conditions. 5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fee's which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. DEVELOPMENT CODE 6. Development shall requirements of the otherwise approved. conform to the Professional Commercial (P-C) zoning Oak Parks Planned Development (PD 1.1) except as 7. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Development Code Chapter 16.60. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 8. NOISE 9. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans except as specifically modified by these conditions. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday. WATER 10. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow showerheads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. SOLID WASTE 11. Per Development Code Section 16.48.130(c), trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials, and shall be made of masonry or concrete with an exterior finish that complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area shall be large enough to accommodate recycling container(s). 12. Trash enclosures shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and recycling container storage. Miscellaneous tires, auto parts, boxes, bins, racks, etc., will not be allowed within the enclosure. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 13. The development shall be restricted to senior citizens (ages 55 and older). 14. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the apartment units (or 15 units) shall be reserved for moderate-income seniors through a 30-year deed restriction recorded on each unit, or equivalent restrictive covenant. Annual reports shall be submitted to the City from an independent agency (such as the San Luis Housing Authority) verifying compliance to this restriction. 15. If directed by City Council, the applicant shall enter into a funding agreement with the City that describes the purpose and terms of financial assistance from the City's Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund. 16. For paving proposed under the dripline of existing shall be used to allow air and nutrient exchange to shall comply with the most current ADA standards. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: oak trees, only porous pavers the root system. The pavers 17. The Community Development Director shall approve plans for the trash enclosures. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 18. The development plans shall comply with Development Code, Chapter 16.56, "Parking and Loading Requirements". The parking spaces shall be clearly marked to delineate the tenant parking from the parking for the senior center. 19. The applicant shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department or Building and Fire Department to verify that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required for this inspection. 20. The applicant shall submit details of all proposed screening and retaining walls for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Any fence, wall, or combination thereof exceeding six (6) feet in height, but less than eight (8) feet, shall require a Minor Exception approved by the Community Development Director. 21. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Parks and Recreation Departments. The plan shall be consistent with the requirements of Development Code Section 16.56.130, "Landscaping for Off Street Parking Facilities". The landscape plan shall include the following: a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. No significant trees to be removed. d. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: 1. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5') of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs; 2. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants and mulches shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan; - 3. An automated irrigation system. 4. Pampas grass shall be permanently removed from the project site. 5. No landscape materials shall be planted under the dripline of any existing oak tree. PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 22. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, "Fences, Walls and Hedges"; 16.48.090, "Lighting'; 16.48.120, "Performance Standards"; and 16.48.130 "Screening Requirements". 23. The developer shall provide mail receptacles for the units as required by the Postmaster of the Pismo Beach Post Office. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMM/TTEE 24. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 521 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance. 26. Linear root barriers shall be used at the front of the project to protect the sidewalks. 27. All street front trees shall be 24-inch box. POLICE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: 28. The applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval. PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 29. The applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. 30. The applicant shall post handicapped parking, per Police Department requirements. BUILDING AND F/RE DEPARTMENT 31. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. 32. The project shall have a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute for a duration of four hours. 33. The project shall be compliant with current state and federal disabled access laws (ADA). 34. The project shall comply with California State amended building codes. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: 35. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. __ _ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 � K�l The applicant shall obtain County Health Department approval for the kitchen in the Senior Recreation Center. The applicant shall pay any review costs generated by outside consultants. PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 38. Fire hydrants shall be installed per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. 39. All fire lanes must be Department guidelines. access to the buildings. � 41 42. posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Directional signage shall also be posted for emergency The applicant must provide an approved "security key vaulY' per Building and Fire Department guidelines. The building must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines. The applicant shall install a Fire Department approved fire alarm system per National Fire Protection Association Standards. • 43. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. 20, the applicant shall provide a Vegetation Management Plan for a portion of the open space property located adjacent to and north of the project site. The Plan shall include an area having a depth of 200' along the northern project boundary. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GENERAL IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 44. Site Maintenance - The developer shall be responsible during construction for cleaning city streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the project site. The flushing of dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day's work or as directed by the Director of Public Works or the Community Development Director. 45. .. Encroachment Permit - The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right of way. Grading - All grading shall be done in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance. 47. Fees - The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees at the time they are due. (For your information, the "Procedure for �Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions" is provided below). _ . RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 10 PROCEDURE FOR PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR EXACTIONS: (A)Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project by meeting both of the following requirements: (1) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition. (2) Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of the following information: (a) A statement that the required payment is tendered or will be tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed are provided for or satisfied, under protest. (b)� A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. (B) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision (A) shall be filed at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on a development project. (C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision (A) may file an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency within 180 days after the delivery of the notice. (D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or parcel map is approved or conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a tentative map or tentative parcel map is not required. (E) The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions occurs, for the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific development. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 11 PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT: 48. Improvements required - All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications, except as may be modified by these conditions of approval. The following improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control. b. Curb, gutter and sidewalk. c. Public utilities. d. Water and sewer. e. Traffic signal and street improvement for the intersection at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. f. Signing and striping plan for the intersection at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. 49. Site Plan Requirements - The site plan shall include the following: a. The location and size of all water, sewer and storm water facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. b. Location, quantity and size of all sewer laterals. c. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. d. All parcel lines and easements related to the property. e. The focation and dimension of all paved areas. f. The location of all public or private utilities. g. The location of all existing improvements such as retaining walls. 50. Traffic signal design — Prior to issuing a building permit, all plans related to the traffic signal at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street shall be completed, and approval by the City and Caltrans shall be obtained. 51. Fee reimbursement — The developer shall implement the design and installation of the Camino Mercado/West Branch Street signalization improvements as described in these conditions: The City will reimburse the developer for the design and construction costs for the signalization improvements to the extent that such costs exceed the developer's responsibility to pay for traffic signalization fees. The improvements that are included in the reimbursement are the signal installation, related signage and striping, and island modification. 52. Reimbursement Agreement — Prior to signal plan approval, the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. The reimbursement agreement shall include the amount and timing of reimbursement. 53. Water Storage — Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. 3, the applicant shall pay a water storage fee for fair share of costs of projects identified in the water master plan. Based on previous calculations, the fair share would be $2,625 per Equivalent Residential Unit water usage. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 12 54. Drainage design - All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow. 55. Parking lot design — The cross slope on parking lot driving lanes shall not exceed 5 percent. 56. Entrance design — The driveway entrance shall be designed with curb returns having a minimum radius of 15 feet. 57. Improvement agreement - Prior to approval of any improvement plans, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 58. Soils report - A preliminary soils report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. 59. Adjacent structures - The grading plan design shall include measures to protect the adjacent structures from damage due to the construction. 60. Landscape approvals - Landscape and irrigation plans are required within the public right of way, and shall be approved by the Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments. 61. Utility company review - All public improvement plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and comment. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 62. Plan submittals - Upon approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall provide a reproducible mylar set and 3 sets of prints of the improvements for inspection purposes. Prior to acceptance of the improvements, the applicant shall provide reproducible mylars, and 2 sets of prints of the approved r.ecord drawings (as builts). 63. Recorded documents - All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8'/z" x 11" City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing fees. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 64. Water Neutralization Program — Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. 2, The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 13 Implementing an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation; or, Paying an in lieu fee of $2,200 per Equivalent Residential Unit water usage. 65. Street widening — Camino Mercado shall be widened along the property fron�age. The widening shall provide a width 22 feet from centerline to the curb (matching the existing curb to the east). The pavement structural section shall be based on a Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0. 66. Intersection signalization — A traffic signal at Camino Mercado and West Branch Street shall be installed and operational. 67. Curb and sidewalk — A concrete curb, gutter and 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the property frontage. 68. Parking lot striping — The parking lot spaces shall utilize double line striping. 69. Road Repairs - Camino Mercado shall be reconstructed across the property frontage and to the center of the street to a structural section capable of supporting a TI=6.0. 70. Site Drainage — Roof drainage and parking lot drainage shall be collected in a storm drain system. The public storm drain in Camino Mercado approximately 100 feet west of the project boundary shall be extended to connect to the project drainage system. 71. Storm Drains - The onsite storm drain system shall be private. The storm drain in Camino Mercado shall be public. All on-site private drainage structures shall be equipped with a fossil filter and debris catcher. The applicant shall implement a regular maintenance and cleaning program for the on-site drainage facilities. Both the filters and the maintenance program shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 72. Site Grading — All existing cut slopes, which have been previously graded and left in an unsafe condition, shall be graded to a safe condition with a maximum slope of 2:1. 73. Relocate Water Facilities - The existing water air release valve and the existing fire hydrant shall be relocated as necessary to accommodate the new improvements, as required by the Director of Public Works. 74. Onsite private fire lines - Private onsite fire sprinkler lines shall be connected to the public water system with a backflow prevention assembly. The backflow RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 14 assembly shall be painted green. Fire department connections shall be located per the Fire Department requirements. 75. Onsite public fire lines — A 15-foot wide easement shall be provided for public waterlines serving onsite fire, as required by the Director of Public Works. 76. Water-sewer crossings - All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with California State Health Agency standards. 77. Water meters - Water meters shall be located in the public sidewalk or as approved by the Director of Public Works. Separate meters may be used for irrigation. 78. Sewer Connection — The onsite sewer system shall be private and shall connect to the public sewer system in a single location. Sewer laterals larger than 4 inches shall connect to the public system at a manhole. 79. Existing Services - Existing water and sewer services not used by the project shall be abandoned per the requirements of the Director of Public Works. 80. City benchmark — The applicant shall install new City Benchmark in the vicinity of Camino Mercado. 81. Underground new utilities - All new public utilities shall be installed as underground facilities except as noted. 82. Utilities operational - Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 15 MIT/GATION MEASURES A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing that the mitigation measures have been implemented. The applicant shall implement the recommendations included in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. dated October 4, 2001 (Project No. SL002497-1), included in the Initial Study as Attachment A. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: 2. Review of grading, drainage, and foundation plans Public Works Department Prior to issuance of building permit The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: Implementing an individual water program that utilizes fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to implementation; or, paying the in lieu fee. Monitoring: Review of individual water program or payment of the in lieu fee Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 3. The applicant shall pay a fee of $2,625 per Equivalent Residential Unit,water usage for adequate water storage for the project. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: Pay required fee Public Works Department Prior to issuance of building permit 4. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: Review of building plans Building and Fire Department Prior to issuance of building permit RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 16 5. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: Review of landscaping and irrigation plans Parks and Recreation Department Prior to issuance of building permit 6. The applicant shall provide detailed drainage calculations indicating that increased run-off can be accommodated by existing facilities and/or provide on- site retention basins to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: Review of grading plans Public Works Department Prior to issuance of a grading permit 7. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. 8. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. 9. Permanent dust control measures identified in the revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. 10. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. . 11. All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. 12. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 13. 14. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 17 For Mitigation Measures No. 7-14: Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans and site inspections Responsible Dept: Public Works and Building & Fire Departments shall inspect plans and spot check in the field Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during construction 15. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. The applicant and the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement providing that the City shall reimburse the applicant the difference in costs befinreen the signal installation and the projecYs Signalization Impact fee. The applicant may be reimbursed for those costs to the extent that signalization impact fees are available and programmed for this project. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: The applicant shall install the traffic signal Public Works Department Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 16. The applicant shall pay the City's Transportation Facilities Impact fee prior to issuance of building permit. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: The applicant shall pay the fees Building & Fire Department Prior to issuance of building permit 17. Site development plans shall specify that grading and other types of disturbance be precluded from a 25-foot buffer zone around the Pismo Clarkia populations to minimize impacts. A fence and appropriate signage shall be placed around the buffer zone to preclude impacts to Pismo Clarkia during construction. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit plans showing these protection measures. Responsible Dept: Community Development Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit 18. The site development plans identifying protection areas around the Pismo Clarkia shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) at least 10 days prior to the start of site work. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: The applicant shall submit the plans to CDFG Community Development Department Prior to issuance of grading permit _ _ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 18 19. Protective fencing shall be installed around each tree at the dripline. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing, grading, or demolition activities, and shall remain in place until construction is complete, including landscaping. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating the following: Tree Protection Zone No personnel equipment materials or vehicles are allowed Do Not move or remove this fence [Name of arborist or consultant] [Name and phone number of developer or general contractor] Monitoring: Responsible Depts: Timeframe: Field inspection Parks & Recreation and Community Development Departments Prior to issuance of grading permit 20. The applicant shall submit a Vegetation Management Plan for a portion of the open space property located adjacent to and north of the project site. The plan shall include an area having a depth of 200' along the northern project boundary. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: 21 22. The applicant shall submit the plan Building & Fire Department Prior to issuance of building permit All construction equipment shall be provided with well-maintained, functional mufflers to limit noise. All construction activities shall comply with the time limits specified by the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. � 23. To the greatest extent possible, grading and/or excavation operations at portions of the site bordering developed areas should occur during the middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of neighboring noise sensitive uses. For Mitigation Measures No. 21 — 23: Monitoring: Notes shall be placed on the construction plans referencing the above measures. Responsible Dept: Public Works Department Timeframe: During construction ---- _ _ _ _____ RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 19 24. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project: "In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the significance of the resources are determined. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner (781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or additional mitigation measures as required by the California Environmental Quality Act if archaeological resources are found on the site." Monitoring: Review of grading plans and site visits by the Public Works Inspector Responsible Dept: Public Works and Building & Fire Departments Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during site grading 25. The applicant shall pay all applicable park development fees to the City. Monitoring: Responsible Dept: Timeframe: The applicant shall pay the park development fees Parks & Recreation Department Prior to issuance of building permit __ EXHIBIT 61 9 ��Qa��S� �i o , �ea�g ` I .'�� y � � €�Q s��}§ g�� f� i 1 ��4�� l�� , �j � ! i�� o� i�� •��I� Il�� ' �� ; 4�€� �� $ y � � �� s �,s�= t �_, � : i t ��-- � 9 !i ��s �� ►�- t � °� � R R �� i � � �� t�� !� ; �i t��i ��i� i�' e' �if �� i B� 1 � �� _�. �: � �� z �r� 0►7 . } 1� �:1 �i� �` � � .� s �� a �� _ ; �� ; '�' � ; (; •, • ::" z�:: �_• - �a:; ..:.. ... -� 3 � 3 1 � I �' � i Ri ., f '.. � €� a � 5 �� ; � _. . � �, yy'' . � e i �l�+I � �' t� � 3: j m ° �i o tt �, r z 3 :j # y � � - �` ° °' q � m n II9 W } � f� 5 Si � I �y �7 m O. i i �i �p � � O �de �m N i;i�� ; N � � �ii€• I m � _ '-:;�:� � _ o a:.a:i � f�� _ A � 3 f 9 � � i.e � :. ?': �i� �i�� a `' 6 e� �� ' jliz g i a § ly � � n � F �; Q � / * � I; =�(1 rI > � i '� > p, :c l' �/ ; ��' �: ,� ,�:� ,�,� � � � . ,1 , , , , ,,, I ;. �,__ i t � J� �i �, � -#�;�_ �- iE� ;�' � 3'�� '. � 1 � � .' � f ; , ��', ' � j: ;,�� ' �l � _.� r, ,� 1� ��,: � �� , J �� ; , 1, i r . ♦�; 9i 1 < <�� ! r � �� - . � . , . � ; ,� �� , !'' 1- %' t E ; � �`� � � ' � 3� ,. . . % . I i � ,, • � fi �� .1, t 1i �� i 1 + �� lt � t �i ��' 1 �1�{ '; I,II sl� I < I N �� i " � ; ,� , 1��' _ �.'�i�� 9II�:F� 0 � "�'i �� iE��f�� ij�� ;'��:�I I� ��:1�`�1, �� i�si� �� , ij ( ,t� ; � ;!E ( 1 ,, 'i - It .� EXHIBIT 62 _� u , �� 0 T m ` -� �j; �'. �� Il�i 0 '�'i S`r '�� ;',r': , ,' � ,':` . x`•. " ,� '�iliqu �1"1 7'i��1�u� Uii�Vl'� �Iw91�t��t �a��l�,a�"i� � 1 „' yt � ,` � � j= ; i ii��;ii'= !li! l ��t;�;:[ (��i�s3 ��n��il��! ��i�l±t��t� 3s,ij ;�, � �---- _-=�:==' �� Eii �t � � ►j��t�b � I � �,; f ��I{�E'I ��'i � ��e — .: -'� � , �,�;; � �� Uls saq- .p .��1> >!77l� 3�v�P�:• ul�i 8fi�� t! 'IlIIIiI:'•7' iP�• i4i�E3 1��1i'ii�i 91� i iil� ;�EE�;j�` 1'��l�jl ��; �i�g�4 ��; i��i�stliz �;;={�31 ii�� , � f`� , I i f � - - - - - - • ' - EXHIBIT 63 �r i � � � N m � �_� 3j p �� r � � . � ib � N � m m T 'g i j '� j p � D p � N � F � { g - o �. O � o � . �_, i� � � ''O a s F g � p .; � �l 3� : '3 �Sm at N Q � E� � � N� D � D `�' y t S � Z - 3 — o� N � � �� -� � 6< �� V :; ; u� e: � ' ;�1�7� �f��7 il�: ... �;�� - ti'i° � i�_ "I3s.: :� e$ .� .� :� 9 m � � � s� � � s �—'9 �� 9^ � ° a . '� E,' � EXHIBIT B4 N 7� .r.0 OF'n H yf A7 �� i �ia� �� r7 m fl � � O y U G m t - C m x —1 m � � o � � ti T S m m < > � EXHIBIT B5 t� �� 9. �i �� i � L E L i' !i ' 3 li ' �. �!� ^ 4� n '�� O � m x i i m o ,'0 9 � y Q = A m r m ^' r � m y < a D i -i O Z N cn ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR � SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSISTANCE ALLOCATION CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 BACKGROUND At Council hearing on December 1 1, 2001, the applicant requested and the Council directed additional consideration of an Affordable Housing Assistance Allocation for the Camino Mercado Senior Housing Project. Specifically, the applicant, Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc. represented by Gary Young and Jason Blankenship asked for "funding assistance through the housing in-lieu fund"..."to offset infrastructure and City fees." The City has not previously established a procedure for Affordable Housing Assistance allocations but has two current major development projects that propose a greater percentage of low and moderate income units than adopted policies require as a minimum. A) The Camino Mercado Senior Housing project proposes that 25% of the total 60 units, that is 15 units, will be controlled by a 30 year recorded agreement or deed restriction that assures the City that a minimum of 15 units will be leased or rented only to qualified low and moderate income senior tenants. Adopted housing policies require that any development not requiring General Plan Amendment or Rezoning shall provide a minimum of 10% of the total units be available for affordable housing, or in this case, 6 of the 15 units proposed. Nine (9) units of affordable housing above the minimum requirements are proposed, assuming approval of the project CUP by the City. B) Concurrently, another application for a mixed use development including 108 units of senior housing near Courtland and Grand has been accepted for processing. This project proposes that 100% of the 108 units would be restricted to low and moderate income tenants _ _ __ while adopted housing policies require that a minimum of 25% of total units in developments enabled by rezoning be committed to affordable housing. This project would therefore be required to provide a minimum of 27 of the 108 units as affordable housing, but the applicant is proposing that the 81 additional units be similarly restricted. (This project is located within the City's Redevelopment Project area and staff will recommend that the Redevelopment Agency consider allocation of additional financial assistance utilizing the Agency's housing set aside funds) According to the Finance Department, approximately S407,000 is currently unallocated in the Affordable Housing, In-lieu account (#232) and about 546,000 balance is unallocated in the Redevelopment set-aside account f#285). RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff recommends that the Council consider proportional allocation of the entire unallocated balance of these specific accounts despite preliminary inquiries and interest from other potential private and non-profit housing developers who may qualify and submit future proposals for more than minimum percentage of affordable housing projects. One such potential project is a 12 to 16 unit Self-Help Housing development in a Mixed-Use site near EI Camino Real and East Grand Avenue. Staff expects that the Affordable Housing In-lieu fund account will receive substantial payments during 2002 from continued construction of homes in the Berry Gardens development available later in 2002 for further affordable housing assistance allocations. Staff also recommends the following preliminary allocations to the two current projects involving the 90 units, dividing the fund balance (in excess of the minimum required by adopted housing policies) within both applications on file requesting affordable housing in-lieu assistance: $407,000 divided by (81 & 9 units) 90 =$4522/d.u. A) Camino Mercado Senior Housing Project would receive 9 units ot affordable housing fund assistance at 54522 per dwelling unit (excluding the 6 units of 60 total required by adopted policy) _ 540,700. B) Courtland/Grand Senior Housing Project would receive 81 units of affordable housing fund assistance at 54522 per dwelling unit (excluding the 27 units of the 108 total required by adopted policy) _ 5366,300. discussed this recommendation with the applicants and recommends it as an equitable approach. It is staff's recommendation that projects within the Redevelopment area receive a higher priority for redevelopment "housing set aside" funds, but could be considered for residential projects Citywide or outside the City. In this instance, the Courtland/Grand project would be eligible, but the Camino Mercado project would not. Use of these funds for affordable housing projects are permitted outside the project area if the Agency and legislative body find that it will benefit the project area. Use for assistance outside the City is much more restrictive. Therefore, another alternative allocation method would be to divide available funds on an annual or semi-annual application basis proportional to the total number of affordable housing units proposed rather that the number in excess of minimum policy requirements. For this example, the two current projects involve a total of 123 affordable units (15 and 108 respectively) which calculate 53,309 per unit or 549,634 for the Camino Mercado project and 5357,372 for the Courtland/Grand project, exclusive of redevelopment set aside assistance to the latter. As mentioned in previous staff reports, the Council can consider additional development impact fee waivers or other incentives subject to Council policy direction. A copy of a recent "Affordable Housing Fund Award" criteria resolution prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo, is attached as an example of additional criteria for possible consideration. It is Staff's intent to return to Council with similar criteria during 2002-2003 Development Code Revision hearing process or Housing Element considerations. RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING AWARD CRITERIA AND A REVIEW PROCESS FOR ALLOCATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1348 (1999 Series) establishing an Affordable Housing Fund for the collection and distribution of in-lieu housing fees to promote affordable housing in San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, as a result of the in-lieu fee payments to the City under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City has a balance of approximately $400,000 in the Affordable Housing Fund, and this fund is available to support affordable housing in San Luis Obispo at the sole discretion of the City Council; and WHERAS, the City received requests by Judson Terrace Lodge and Sojoum Services, Inc. for the use of $215,000 and $25,000, respectively, of Affordable Housing Funds; and to evaluate these and future funding requests in a fair and timely manner, Council wishes to establish award criteria and a review process for the Affordable Housing Fund; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 4, 2001 to consider possible award criteria that balance the need to provide a fair, open and timely fixnding award process with the desire to maintain funding flexibility to address local housing needs and opportunities; BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that based on its deliberations, public comments, the staff report, and on State law, the following: SECTION 1. Affordable Housing Fund Award Criteria. The City Council establishes the following criteria for evaluating requests for use of the Affordable Housing Fund: 1. Eligibility. Use of the Affordable Housing Fund for the requested purpose will increase or improve affordable housing and promote General Plan policies regazding housing and related community goals. 2. Suitability. The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location, both in terms of land use and design. 3. Urgency. There exists an urgent or overarching need for the type of housing to be assisted. Council Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 4. Fivancial Effectiveness. But for the requested assistance, the project would not be economically feasible; or AHF funding "leverages" significant additional funding from other sources. 5. Readiness. The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed. Section 2. Use of Award Criteria. The Council will apply the above criteria when evaluating funding requests. Requests that most closely meet the criteria will be given the most favorable consideration in allocaring Affordable Housing Funds. Under no circumstances is Council obligated to award Affordable Housing Funds. The decision whether to allocate funds and how much is at the sole discretion of the City Council whose decision is final. Section 3. Review Process. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for processing requests for use of Affordable Housing Funds. Such requests shall usually be considered concurrent with review of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program. The Director is authorized to bring urgent funding requests to the Council at any time, irrespective of the above review cycle. Section 4. Funding Agreements. Recipients of Affordable Housing Funds shall be required to execute an agreement with the City describing the purpose and terms of funding. The project or program to be funded shall meet the City's Affordable Housing Standazds, including the requirement for an affordability term of at least thirty (30) yeazs, and City equity participation in the project where feasible and appropriate. The City Administrative Officer is authorized to execute such agreements for the City. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: /\ 7.`1�I�YIE the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2001 Mayor Allen Settle ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL VIA: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER FROM: DAN HERNANDEZ, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION and � FACILITIES SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVERS OF PARK DEVELOPMENT, PARK IMPROVEMENT AND COMMUNITY CENTER FEES DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2001 Staff has received Council direction to research communities and projects that have qualified for reduction of appropriate fees in return for community facilities. Based on this direction, staff has compiled the following information and recommendation regarding fees. In the letter received from Central Coast Real Estate Development, Inc., they specifically sited the Mussell Senior Center as an example of a facility that was constructed and had park fees waived. This is a 10,000 square ft. facility with an operation/maintenance cost of approximately $160,000 annually. This facility however is a multi-use facility that is also used for rentals, youth and adult programming. In speaking with Alex Posada, Director of Parks and Recreation for the-City of Santa Maria, he stated that the City would not have accepted this facility if it was only designated for senior use. Facility programming helps offset operating costs. The proposed facility located in this project is being proposed as an exclusive senior center with pool tables (three are proposed), furnishings, N, tables and chairs. Amenities may reduce usable open floor space to less than 2000 square feet. In Goleta, the Costco development included an 11-acre multi-use park (Girsh Park) that is operated by a non-profit corporation. While this commercial development was not subject to Quimby (Park Development) Fees, the park was proposed by the developer in order to help the project receive County approval. This facility includes a community room, one soccer field, one softball field and a multi-use field. It is also a multi-programmed facility used by adults, youths and individuals that rent the multi-purpose room. In every other instance I have researched with the cities of Santa Barbara, Morro Bay, Santa Cruz, Ventura and Simi Valley, credits have only been issued for open space or multi-use facilities that are operated by the respective municipalities. In addition, the construction and use of the Senior Center located in this development would augment facilities used by seniors, but would not fulfill all the needs of the senior population. Senior groups currently use the Woman's Club Community Center for a variety of activities and group functions that would continue to occur there regardless of this project due to the location of the facility as well as access (Attachment 1). Some of these functions are for groups as large as 200 individuals. The proposed facility would not accommodate such activities. Also, the proposed senior complex would increase the local senior population, who would most likely participate in many functions and groups that use the City's parks and facilities, thereby creating a direct impact to parks and recreations operated facilities and parks. City facilities currently used by seniors include the Woman's Club Community Center, the Pool Room at the Soto Sports Complex and Strother Park. It is not anticipated that these needs would change. The current fees for the project include $3,985 for Community Center Impact fees, $84,970 for Park Improvement fees and $113,160 for Park Development fees for a total of $202,115. Staff supports inclusion of the senior center in the project and believes it will provide a benefit in meeting an unmet need in the community. Therefore, there is justification for some level of a fee credit, but we do not believe it warrants the level of fee credit or waiver requested by the applicant. Section 16.64.060 of the Municipal Code outlines the City's requirement for park development fees and credit for private open space. The provisions of this section are primarily designed to address parkland open space, but does make reference to "recreation buildings and facilities designed and primarily used for the recreational needs of the residents of the development." The purpose of the Park Development Fee is to fund the addition of park space to meet the demands created by future development. The Park Improvement Fee was created to fund improvements to existing parks that will be needed as a result of future development. The inclusion of the senior center does not substantially reduce either of these impacts. Since the City's current provisions primarily address open space dedication or in- lieu fees, it does not include guidance for appropriate credit for exclusively facility space, other than a not-to-exceed amount of 75% of the Park Development Fee. Therefore, staff recommends a fee reduction of $43,657 based on the following rationale. Based on census data, 36% of the current City population are seniors 65 years of age and older. The proposed facility would liberally serve approximately 60% of the senior needs, or 21.6% of the populations needs. Using a credit based on this formula, a fee credit of $43,657 would be staff's recommendation. This would include full waiver of $3,985 of the Community Center Impact Fees and $39,671.84 out of the Park Development Fees. Cdd�a �D�.n.c�+� 1 a a A� o � m ��/ � W � � a d � a N W � � O m � O .-r W � � � z � w F , E� �, a W � � i..� U � F � w I � � � P� � �. U � o� � o � � � a � U �r Z � � 0 z � a � � 3 C7 � � o o � � o 0 � � � � c� cv a � v� O N � � � � O � n N M �--� 00 �--� 00 00 M �--� �--� N � � ci a � M V CL � � � N F�"" � O � �' T T 0 ' CL cC � � Q � cd �d cd M � O p " Q " N N O A A � M M M �--� �--� M � "" "" � .- p� � .� O� O� W � �i y T � � '�, A � �, �, T y T � � x � � � � y T � � T � o ' � a o o , � � a � � = c�i � � F � � � K, � � a, >, � 3 0 �3 a F � 3 °' �W ° � C4 � � � � $ � � a�i � � v � .�°.. � � � � b � b � � �, � a o b� c�7 U� a�i a w� W a�i � � � y�� a�� a a a� �� U U U U U U U U W � � U � ^� � � G � � � H Cj E � � � � � � � � o � � � � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a=�� 3 3 3 3�� 3�� a x . " t -� _ .I._... ..- ., . . .. . .y DEC 2 0 ''_^'?' �n �; _; c� � � - Central Coast Real Estate Developmen� Inc. �'�' ' ' " _ - :_ -^� 2815 Mesa Alta Lane Arrovo Grande.CA. 93420 805-459-0356 fax 805-473-9485 Email — centralcoastred�a vahoo.com December 20, 2001 Dan Hernandez, Pazks and Recreation Director Rob Strom, Planning Director Steve Adams, City Manager C/o City of Arroyo Grande 214 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: In response to your telephone call regarding our previous letter Deaz Dan, Thank you for your conformation that the Mussell Center is primarily a"Senior Centex", but it can be rented out by certain groups at the Cities Discretion. I spoke with Brenda Daniels who is the Facilities Coordinatar for the Parks and Recreation department and I asked her specific questions about the Mussell Center and how it functions. Brenda stated that the Center is a Senior Center, but it can be rented wt when there are openings. I asked her if anyone could rent this facility out? Who has priority? Who are some of these groups who use this facility? Brenda said they intentionally do not allow children, youth, or teens to rent this facility. Her reply was that "we aze not authorized to rent to children or young adults for their different functions", and "only matuze adults can use this facility". As faz as priority use, Brenda expressed that the seniors have priority and when there are openings, these different adult organizations, or groups can use this facility. Some of these groups include adult instructional classes, counseling, therapeutic back exercising, nutrition classes, etc. I asked her for spec�fic breakdown on when and how the center is used, but she expressed that they did not keep that ldnd of information. Brenda did say as faz as pmportional use that exclusively seniors use it approximately 80% of the time, while associated adult goups use it the remaining 20% of the time. Our Senior Center is precisely a Senior Center, and it will primarily function as one. But, we have no objections to other adult groups usittg this facility when it is not being used �by the Five Cities Seniors. Again however it is stricdy reserved for adult activity. We can appreciate your desiring all the pazk fees your department can obtain from this project. However, we believe that the cost of the facility (as submitted to you a few weeks ago) that we are providing far outweighs any park fees that would normally be assessed. ._ zn�,x�, � �— Y�l�s�.p' JMson Blankenship Project Plaiuier -„-� _ ,� ,,, . ��:_ _, - ATTACHMENT 3 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROB STRONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: KELLY HEFFERNON ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 01-010 TO CONSTRUCT A 60-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT COMPLEX AND 3,000 SQUARE FOOT SENIOR RECREATION CENTER; 579. CAMINO MERCADO; CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt a Resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration, instructing the Director of Administrative Services to file a Notice of Determination, and approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010. Staff requests that Council review the attached Memorandum from Rob Strong to the City Council regarding financial assistance and fee waivers for affordable housing (Attachment 5) and provide direction. FUNDING: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission considered the proposed project on November 20, 2001. After discussing issues related to affordable housing, ADA compliance, parking, and traffic impacts, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council (reference Attachment 2 for Planning Commission meeting minutes). Staff has amended the conditions of approval relating to these issues per Planning Commission direction. Proiect Description The project site is located within the Professional Commercial District ("P-C") of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) and is approximately four (4) acres in size. Surrounding the site is an approved office development to the west (currently under construction), single-family residences to the east, the Oak Park Professional Center to _ __ CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE2 the south, and designated open space property to the north between the project site and James Way. The PC District conditionally allows the development of apartment units, but does not stipulate density. The applicant proposes to construct forty (40) two-bedroom and twenty (20) one- bedroom apartments in six (6), two-story buildings having a California Craftsman architectural design. The apartments range in size from 828 square feet to 978 square feet. The age of tenants would be restricted to 55 and older, and twenty-five percent (25%) of the units would be reserved for those qualirying for moderate-income housing. The project also includes a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center that will be open to both the apartment tenants and the senior community as a whole. All facilities and access to the project site will be ADA compliant. A bus stop is also proposed in front of the property to facilitate mobility (reference Attachment 3 for Developer's Statement). Pre-Application Review The Planning Commission and City Council initially reviewed the proposed project as a Pre-Application on July 17, 2001 and August 14, 2001, respectively (reference Attachments 10 and 11 for meeting minutes). Discussion focused primarily on ADA compatibility, parking, traffic impacts, visual impacts and affordable housing. Staff Advisorv Committee The SAC reviewed the Conditional Use Permit on September 18, 2001 and discussed the following issues (reference Attachment 12 for meeting notes): ■ Adherence to ADA standards. ■ Access for emergency vehicles. ■ Fuel management of the back slope located adjacent to and north of the project site (Rancho Grande open space parcel). ■ Location of existing and proposed utilities. ■ Soils information. ■ Camino Mercado road improvements. • Traffic impacts and parking requirements. ■ Height of retaining walls (elevations). Architectural Review Committee The ARC discussed the proposed project on October 1, 2001 and November 5, 2001 (reference Attachments 13 and 14 for meeting notes). The Committee was satisfied with the changes made to the plans regarding the accurate location of ADA ramps and showing the relationship of the senior center with the rest of the project. The Committee also stated that the three-dimensional scaled model greatly enhanced the ability to visualize the scale, height and density of the buildings on the project site. All comments were favorable and the ARC recommended approval to the Planning Commission with no specific conditions added. CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE 3 DISCUSSION The proposed project is subject to both the Development Code standards for parking and landscaping, and to the specific standards outlined in the P-C District of PD 1.1. As shown in the table below, the project meets all relevant site development requirements except for off street parking, which is discussed further below. Buildinq HeiQht The Development Code allows a maximum building height in the P-C District of either two (2) stories or thirty feet (30'), whichever is less. Building height is defined as the vertical distance between the average finished grade and the highest point of the roof (excluding mechanical equipment, chimneys, etc.). The proposed project is within this height limit. Traffic Impacts Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (reference Attachment C of the Initial Study), the development is anticipated to generate 19 trips during the AM and PM peak hours, which is less than the 20-peak hour threshold of significance established by the City. The analysis concludes that the study intersections will not fall below an acceptable level of service with the added trips under the existing conditions. Under the future traffic conditions, however, the West Branch Street/Camino Mercado intersection is expected to degrade to a level of service F, and a signal is therefore warranted at this intersection. Similar to other recently approved projects adding trips to this intersection, recommended mitigation includes payment of the projecYs proportional share of the City's traffic transportation facilities and signalization fees. This includes installing a signal at the intersection of Camino Mercado at West Branch Street, subject to a reimbursement agreement with the City. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE4 Bioloc7ical Impacts The biological survey previously prepared for the Horizon Senior Housing project identified three populations of Pismo Clarkia on the project site, a plant species federally listed as an endangered species and classified as a State Rare Plant. The applicant will be required to protect these plant populations. Approximately 12 mature Coast Live oak trees exist on the site. No oak trees will be removed as a result of this project, and the project is conditioned to implement tree protection measures during construction. Landscape materials selected for the natural and perimeter sloped areas of the site are predominantly native plant species and drought tolerant, and therefore compatible with the native oaks. Density The Professional Commercial District of PD 1.1 is silent with regard to density standards. The zoning district that most closely resembles the proposed land use is the Senior Housing Residential District (SR), which allows up to 25 units per acre when finrenty-five percent (25%) of the units are reserved for low and moderate-income housing. Placing sixty (60) units on the 3.97-acre project site calculates to a density of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. Moderate Income Restriction Twenty-five (25%) of the units, or 15 units, would be restricted to moderate-income senior housing. A deed restriction would be recorded against each of these units to ensure that the rent remains at the moderate-income level. An independent agency, such as the San Luis Housing Authority, would review the facility records to verify compliance. These records would be submitted to the City of Arroyo Grande on an annual basis for review (reference Condition of Approval No. 14). The applicant submitted a letter of intent to apply for funding assistance from the City's in-lieu fund collected for affordable housing purposes to help offset infrastructure and City fees (Attachment 4). To date, the City has not implemented a formal process for utilizing this fund, which currently stands at $344,876. The RDA housing set-aside fund currently has a balance of $34,525. Because the project includes a senior recreation center, staff recommends the Council consider waiving the Recreation Community Center Impact Fee, which is estimated to be $3,985 (reference Attachment 6). The attached Memorandum from Rob Strong to City Council addresses the issue of City assistance and fee waivers for projects that include affordable housing (Attachment 5). Parkinq The Development Code requires the following number of parking spaces for independent living-senior housing, including a 3,000 square foot senior center: � CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 11, 2001 CUP 01-010 PAGE 5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Required Number of Proposed Number of Parking Spaces Parking Spaces 1 Bedroom (20 units): 1 covered space per unit (20 (Development Code Sec. 9- covered spaces) 12.060.1.f.) 2+ bedrooms (40 units): 1 covered space per unit and 0.5 uncovered space per unit (40 covered and 20 uncovered spaces) Visitor Parking: 0.5 uncovered space per unit (30 uncovered spaces) SUBTOTAL: 60 covered and 50 uncovered spaces (110 spaces) ��» ��#� �##��♦i�i� �i��l��i�� 3,000 square foot Senior 1 parking space per 50 Center (Development Code square feet of floor area Sec. 9-12.060.2.b.) designed for public assembly (40 spaces, assuming 2,000 square feet is used for public assembly) #i�i��i�#�� #��#�#i�i ��#� TOTAL: 150 total parking spaces 141 total parking spaces (60 covered and 90 (96 covered and 44 uncovered) uncovered) As indicated in the above table, a total of 150 parking spaces are required per the Development Code for this project, and 141 are proposed. The Development Code allows up to a 30% reduction in the required number of parking spaces for common parking facilities with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The reduction requires a parking study that shows how the shared uses (the residential units and the recreation center) have different hours of operation that do not conflict. The applicant is requesting an exception to the required number of parking spaces based on this provision and has submitted a parking study to justify the request (reference Attachment 15). Specifically, the analysis concludes that because of the various modes of transportation available to seniors at this location (walking, using Dial-A-Ride or taxi services, carpooling), the actual parking demand will be less than the parking requirements for these combined uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. An initial study was prepared and based on this analysis, a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures and noticed for public review. No comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration and a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the City Council to review. ALTERNATIVES: The following altematives are presented for Council consideration: 1. Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the resolution; 2. Modify the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the resolution; 3. Take tentative action to deny the project application and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for City Council action; or 4. Provide other direction to staff. If the Council selects alternative 3, staff will return with the appropriate resolution at a later meeting. Attachments: Resolution approving Exhibit "A": Exhibits "B1 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Conditional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 Conditions of Approval — B5": Project Plans Location Map Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2001 Developer's Statement (July 11, 2001) Letter from Applicant Regarding Fees (November 19, 2001) Memo from Rob Strong to City Council Regarding Fee Waivers (December 11, 2001) Memo from Daniel Hernandez to Rob Strong Regarding Park Development Fees (November 27, 2001) Letter from Applicant Regarding Conditions of Approval (November 26, 2001) Memo from Rodger Olds to Kelly Heffernon (November 30, 2001) Letter of Support from Stephen Cool (November 15, 2001) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2001 (Pre-Application) City Council Meeting Minutes of August 14, 2001 (Pre-Application) Staff Advisory Committee Meeting Notes of September 18, 2001 Architectural Review Committee Meeting Notes of October 1, 2001 Architectural Review Committee Meeting Notes of November 5, 2001 Parking Demand Analysis (dated 10/05/01) Initial Study Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Soils Report (dated 10/04/01) APCD Referral Response (dated 11/01/01) Traffic Impact Analysis (dated 8/31/01) Biological Survey (dated 5/28/99) ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE " INITIAL STUDY " 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name & Address: 3. Contact Person & Phone #: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: 6. Generai Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 07-010 City of Arroyo Grande P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Sireet Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Kelly Heffernon (805) 473-5420 579 Camino Mercado Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Central Coast Real Estate Development 2815 Mesa Alta Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the who% action involved, includinq but nof /imited fo lafer phases of fhe pioject, and any secondary, supporf, or off-sife feafures necessary for its implementation. Attach addifiona/ sheefs if necessary.! The proposed project is to construct sixty (60), one and two-bedroom senior apartment units in six (6), two- story buildings, and a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center on a 3.97-acre site. The property was partially graded in 1987 and is currently vacant. Utility construction and minor street improvements are required to serve the project. Because of the previous grading activities, minimal grading will be required and no trees will be removed. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed): None. 1 __ DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. �'/ � �4�Z `��O/ Signamr - Date 3 ENVIRONMENTAI FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potential�y affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" or "POTENTIALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ■ Geophysical B Water 9 Air Quality ■ Trensportation/Circulation � Biological Resources ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources . � Hazards ■ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics O Cultural Resources ■ Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A briel explanation is requiied for all answers except "No lmpact" answers that are adequately supported by the info�mation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses fol%wing each question. A"No Impact" question is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project specific factors as well as general standards le.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project- Ievei, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operetions impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant ImpacY' is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or is the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. � 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentiaily Significant ImpacY' to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly expiain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross referenced.) � 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, progrem EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately anaiyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 150631cI1311D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encoureged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinancesl. A Source List should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be cited in the discussion. 2 Potenfially .. � Pafenfialty Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Signi�cant Un/ess Significant No /mpacf Mitigated /mpact /mpact I, LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah. al Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source It(s): 1,2,3,4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Isource A�IsI: 1,6,7) c) Affect agriculturel resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)7 (source S/Is): 9, 11) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrengement of an esiablished community lincluding a low-income or minority communityl? (source kls): 2,4,11) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would ihe p�oposal.• a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (source 1/Is): 1,5,9) b) Induce substantial growth in an area eiiher directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveioped area or extension of major infrastructurel? (source AIs�: 9,10) X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (source #Isl: 9,10,11) x III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal resu/t in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? Isource J/Is): 5,6) x b) Seismicity: ground shaking or Iiquefaction? �source #Isl: 5,6) c) Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? Isource t11s1: 5,6) d1 Landslides or mudslides? Isource #(sl: 5,6) e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils conditions from excavation, grading or fill? (source l/lsl: 10) x f) Subsidence of land? (source #Isl: 5,6) g) Expansive soils? (source #Is): 5,6) h) Unique geologic or physical features? (source i11s1: 5, 6,10,17) IV. WATER: Wau/dthepioposal�esu/Sin: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rete and amount of surface runoff? Isource #Isl: 101 X X X � � � b) Exposure to peopie or property to water related hazards x such as flooding? (source lils): 8) � _ c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (source #Isl: 9) X X � � Potentia//y ' Potentialty Significant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sourcesl: � Significant Un/ess SigniTicanr No � /mpacf Mifigated /mpact /mpact d) Changes in tha amount of surface water in any water body? (source #(s1: 9, 10) X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Isource #Isl: 9, 101 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrewals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? �source #Is): 9, 10) gl Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (source #Isl: 9, 10) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source #Is): 9,10) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Isource #Isl: 6) X V. AIR nUALITY: Wou/d fhe proposal.• a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Isource #Is): 7, 131 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants7 Isource qls): 10. 11) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Isource lJlsl: 9) d) Create objectionable odors? (source 1/Isl: 9,10) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would ihe proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (source t11s1: 131 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipmentl? (source #Isl: 9, 10) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby sites? (source �/Isl: 9, 10) d1 Insufficie�t parking capacity on-site or off-site? Isource 11�s): 3, 9, 10) e) Hazards or bariiers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (source #Isl: 9, 10) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycie racksl? (source #Is): 9, 70) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts fo: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (inciuding but not limited to plants, fish, insects, X animals, and birds? (source #(sl: 61 b) Localiy designated species le.g., heritage treesl? Isource /11s1: 10, 111 c) Locally designated naturel communities le.g., oak forest, coastal habltatl? (source #Is): 10, 71) 0 X X � X � X � X d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pooll? (source /JIs): 9, 11) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Isource #Isl: 11) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the p�oposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (source JlIs1: 1, 6) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Isource 711s�: 9, 10) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances lincluding, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (source #Is�: 9) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (source #Is): 9, 10) a X X X X X X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health � hazard? (source /fls): 9, 101 x d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potentiai health hazards? (source #Isl: 9,10,11) X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass, or trees? (source #Is): 70, 11) _ X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: al Increases in existing noise levels? Isource MIs): 1, 91 X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Isource �(sl: 9, 10) x XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effeci upon, or resulf in a need for new or altered government services in any o/ the fol%wing areas: a) Fire Protection? (source 711s1: 6) x b) Police Protection? (source lfls�: 6) X c) Schoots? (source #Isl: 6) X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (source #Isl: 61 X e) Other governmental services? Isource #Isl: 61 X _ XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need fo� new systems, or substantial alterations to the fo!lowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (source #Is1: 9, 101 x b) Communications systems? (source #Is): 9, 70) x cl Local or regional water ireatment or distribution facilities? (source 711s1: 6) X d) Storm water drainage? (source #Is): 6) X e) Solid waste disposai? (source �ilsl: 6) X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Isource J/Isl: 1, 10, 11) X $ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (source Il(s1: 9, 10, 1 il X c) Create light or glare? (source #Isl: 9,10) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: � a) Disturb paleontologicai resources? (source #Is): 6, 11) ' X b) Dist�rb archaeologicai resources Isource l/lsl: 6, 11) X c) Affect historical resources? (source #Isl: 6, 11) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which wouid affect unique ethnic cultural values? (source #Isl: 11) el Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (source #Is1: 70, 11) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposah. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (source �Is1: 1, 3) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (source #Is): 1, 5) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential io degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eiiminate a piant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the renge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? bl Does the project have the potential to achieve shorb term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considereble when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the eftects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on huma� beings, either directly or indirectly? X X � X X � XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 150631c113��D1. In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequa[ely analyzed by earlier documents. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated", descri6e the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 0 SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan 2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map 3. City of Arroyo Grande Development Code 4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map 5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report 6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR 7. Air Poliution Control District Clean Air Plan 8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map 9. Project Description 10. Project Plans 11. Site Inspection 12. Ordinance 431 C. S. 13. Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is approximately 3.97 acres in size and is located on Camino Mercado in the Professional Commercial District (P-C) of the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1). Surrounding the site is an office development currently under construction to the west, single-family residences to the east, the Oak Park Professional Center to the south, and open space property to the north. The site slopes steeply up from Camino Mercado and then becomes relatively flat where a building pad was graded in 1987. The property is highly visible from Highway 101 and from the properties west of Highway 101 along EI Camino Real, Chilton Street and Hillcrest Drive. The property is currently vacant and contains numerous mature Coast Live Oak trees. No trees will be removed as a result of this project. Pismo Clarkia, a federally designated endangered plant species and a State Rare Plant, has been identified in three areas along the western property boundary. The project site is not located near a known culturai resource area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project evaluated by this initial study is to construct sixty (60) senior apartment units and a 3,000 square foot senior recreational center with 141 parking spaces. On-site drainage will be accomplished by a drainage system that will convey runoff from both on-site and off-site sources. The project will be served by a public water system, and thus will have no direct or indirect impact on groundwater resources. EXPLANATIONS TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING The property is located in the Oak Park Acres Planned Development (PD 1.1), and is subject to the site development standards for the Professional Commercial zoning designation of PD 1.1, and other ordinances of the City of Arroyo Grande. Construction of a senior housing facility is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the site, and no impacts in land use and planning would result. The proposed project does not pose conflicts with existing environmental plans and/or policies. There are no agricultural operations in the vicinity of the project site. The project is adjacent to existing residential development, an approved office development and open space. Given these diverse existing land uses, the proposed project would not disrupt or divide an established community. Analysis of Significance: No impact. II. POPULATION & HOUSING Occupancy of the project upon completion would increase the population of the area above current levels, but not above levels anticipated by the General Plan. As stated above, the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the site. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact. 7 � GEOPHYSICAL In 1986, a 180-room skilled nursing facility was approved for this site. Construction for that project began in 1987, but ceased in early 1988 after several buiiding pads were cut and retaining walls installed. As a result, minimal additional grading is required for the proposed project. The applicant has submitted a soils report discussing existing site conditions, and measures to reduce potential soils-related impacts (reference Attachment A for soils report). Standard erosion control measures would address on-site construction period erosion by wind or water. Long-term erosion potential would be addressed through installation of landscaping and storm drainage facilities, both of which would be designed to meet applicable regulations. Based on the General Plan and review of the Alquist-Priolo Zone Fauit maps, the proposed project is not located on a known earthquake fault subject to rupture. The proposed project wiil be subject to the effects of periodic seismic events in the region, including ground shaking. However, exposure of people to these events can generally be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk by following Uniform Building Code development standards. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shail implement the recommendations included in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. dated October 4, 2001 (Project No. SL002497-t ), attached to this initiai study as Attachment A. IV Monitoring: Responsible Department: Timeframe: WATER/DRAINAGE Review of grading, drainage, and foundation plans Public Works Department Prior to issuance of building permit � Water. Development of the proposed project would require water for both domestic use and landscape irrigation. Projected water demand is approximately 7.2 acre-feet of water per year. The water consumption by this project would further reduce the City's suppiy of available water. This impact could be mitigated using water-conserving designs, fixtures and landscaping. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant uniess mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 2. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: Implement an individual water program that utilizes fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to implementation; or, Pay an in lieu fee. Monitoring: Responsible Department: Timeframe: Review of individual water program or payment of the in lieu fee Public Works Department Prior to issuance of building permit According the City's Water System Master Plan (adopted 7/13/99), the project does not have adequate water storage facilities to serve the project. The Rancho Grande Reservoir (Reservoir No. 5) provides water storage to the vicinity of the proposed development; however, it has been identified as being inadequate to provide sufficient water storage to the site vicinity. The City currently has capital improvement plans to upgrade the Oro Reservoir (Reservoir No. 3), which would interconnect with the Reservoir No. 5 and add greater storage capacity. Specifically, the recommended capital improvement outlined in the Water System Master Plan states the following: "Construct an additional 750,000 of storage at Reservoir No. 3. Connect the Rancho Grande Pressure Zone to the Oro Pressure Zone via a 12" transmission line, and upgrade the Oro Booster Station." Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated Mitigation Measure 3. The applicant shall pay a fee of $2,625 per Equivalent Residential Unit water usage for adequate water storage for the project. Monitoring: Pay required fee. Responsibie Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 4. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. Monitoring: Responsible Department Timeframe: Review of building plans Building and Fire Department Prior to issuance of building permit 5. All landscaping shall be consistent with water conservation practices including the use of drought tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation, and mulch. To the greatest extent possible, lawn areas and areas requiring spray irrigation shall be minimized. Monitoring: Responsible Department: Timeframe: Review of landscaping and irrigation plans Parks and Recreation Department Prior to issuance of building permit Drainaqe. Development of the site will increase impervious surfaces, which in turn will change absorption rates and increase the amount of runoff. The site would drain onto Camino Mercado and existing drainage facilities would accommodate the increased flows. Detailed drainage calculations would be reviewed as part of the plan check process. . Analysis of Significance: Mitigation Measure: Potentially significant unless mitigated. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed drainage calculations indicating that increased run-off can be accommodated by existing facilities and/or provide on-site retention basins to the satisfaction of the Director of Pubiic Works. Monitoring: Review of grading plans Responsible Department: Pubtic Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of a grading permit V. AIR QUALITY Construction activities would generate dust, which could cause potentiaily significant environmental impacts. Operation of the project wouid also generate approximately 19 AM and 19 PM peak hour trips. Based on the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) emission thresholds, the proposed project would �ot have a significant adverse impact on air quality (reference Attachment B for APCD referral response). Although air quality impacts will fall below APCD thresholds for significance, the project will contribute emissions to the air basin, which is already a non-attainment area for the State ozone standard. Emissions generated by this project, together with emissions generated by reasonably foreseeable new development, will resu�t in a cumulative adverse impact on air quality unless all reasonably available mitigations are included in the design of the project. The dust control measures listed below shall be followed during construction of the project, and shall be shown on grading and building plans. The contractor shall also designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order inoreased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. The name and telephone number of such personls) shall be provided to APCD prior to issuance of grading permit. Analysis of Significance: Fotentialiy significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 7. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. � 8. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. 9. Permanent dust control measures identified in the revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following compietion of any soil disturbing activities. 10. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shouid be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. 11. All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum verticai distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. 12. All roadways, driveways, sidewaiks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, buiiding pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading uNess •' seeding or,soil binders are used. 13. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 14. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soii material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Monitoring: Review of grading and building plans and site inspections 10 VI. Responsible Departments: Timeframe: TRA N S P O RTATI O N I C I R C U LAT I O N The Public Works and Building and Fire Departments shall inspect plans and spot check in the field Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction Access to the project site is from Camino Mercado, a coilector street with a 56-foot right-of-way. Based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project (Penfield & Smith dated 8/13/01, Attachment CI, the development is estimated to generate 19 trips during the AM peak hour and 19 trips during the PM peak hour. Since the project is estimated to generate below the 20-peak hour trip threshold established by the City, the trip generation is not expected to impact the study intersections under the existing conditions. Under the future traffic conditions, however, the West Branch Street/Camino Mercado iniersection will degrade to a level of service F, and a signal is therefore warranted at this intersection. The project traffic would also contribute to the cumulative negative impact on the backbone circulation system. Analysis of Significance: Mitigation Measure: Potentially significant unless mitigated. 15. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Camino Mercado and West Branch Street. The applicant and the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement providing that the City shail reimburse the applicant the difference in costs between the signal installation and the projecYs Signalization Impact fee. The applicant may be reimbursed for those costs to the extent that signalization impact fees are available and programmed for this project. Monitoring: The applicant shall install the traffic signal Responsible Dept./Agency: Public Works Department Timeframe: � Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 16. The applicant shail pay the City's Transportation Facilities Impact fee prior to issuance of building permit. Monitoring: The applicant shall pay the fees Responsible Dept./Agency: Building & Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit VII. BtOLOGICAL RESOURCES A rare plant survey was conducted on May 28, 1999 by Dames & Moore, which identified three Pismo Clarkia (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculate) populations along the western parcel boundary (reference Attachment D for biotogical survey). Pismo Clarkia is listed as endangered by the federal government and is a State Rare Plant. The populations found varied in size from 25 to 50 individuals each, for a total of 75 to 150 plants onsite. The report by Dames & Moore concluded that the presence of Pismo Clarkia atong the site boundary does not preclude further development of the site and recommended that the foilowing measures be implemented to protect the ezisting plant populations. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 17. Site development plans shali specify that grading and other types of disturbance be precluded from a 25-foot buffer zone around the Pismo Clarkia populations to minimize impacts. A fence and appropriate signage shall be placed around the buffer zone to preclude impacts to Pismo Clarkia during construction. 11 18 Monitoring: The applicant shall submit the plans to CDFG Responsible Department: Community Development Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit Approximately 12 mature oak trees exist on the property, all of which are proposed to remain. Tree protection measures must be in place during construction per Ordinance 437 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit plans showing these protection measures. Responsible Department: Community Development Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit The site development plans identifying protection areas around the Pismo Clarkia shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) at least 10 days prior to the start of site work. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 19. The applicant shall retain an arborist during the grading and construction phases of the project. Protective fencing shall be installed around each tree to remain at the dripline, or as directed in the field by the arborist. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing or grading, and shall remain in place until construction is compiete, including landscaping. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating the following: Tree Protection Zone No personnel, equipment, materials, or vehicles are allowed Do Not move or remove this fence [Name of arborist or consultant] [Name and phone number of developer or general contractor] VIII. Monitoring: Field inspection Responsible Departments: Parks & Recreation, Community Development Departments Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit ENERGY AND MINERALRESOURCES Devetopment of the site with an assisted care facility wili not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or result in the wasteful use of non-renewable resources. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant impact. 12 IX. HAZARDS The project does not pose an undue risk to project occupants or occupants of surrounding properties. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the open space area north of the project site for fire protection purposes. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 20. The applicant shall submit a Vegetation Management Plan for a portion of the open space property located adjacent to and north of the project site. The plan shall include an area having a depth of 200' along ihe northern project boundary. Monitoring: The applicant shall submit the plan Responsible Department: Building & Fire Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of building permit 1:1� NOISE Existing noise levels wouid be increased temporarily during the construction phase of this project. Noise resulting from construction activities will be short-term, and is subject to the City's Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant. Analysis of Significance: Potentiaily significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures: 21 22. All construction equipment shall, be provided with weil-maintained, functional mufflers to limit noise. All construction activities shall comply with the time limits specified by the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. 23. To the greatest extent possible, grading and/or excavation operations at portions of the site bordering developed areas shouid occur during the middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of neighboring noise sensitive uses. XI. Monitoring: Notes shall be placed on the construction plans referencing the above measures. Responsible Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: During construction PUBLIC SERVICES Development of the site with an assisted living facility would increase demand for fire and police protection services, but not beyond levels anticipated by the General Plan for City buiidout. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The proposed project will not create a significant demand for new or altered power, gas, communication systems, water treatment capacity or solid waste disposal. The project can tie into the existing infrastructure for these systems to serve the site. The project is within the expected demand for these systems based on the growth rate established in the Generai Plan. 13 Analysis of Significance: Less than significant. El11 AESTHETICS The proposed facility will be placed into the side of the ridge above Camino Mercado where a building pad was previously graded and will be highly visible from the Highway 101 corridor. To reduce visuai impacts, the colors and materials of the architecture were selected to blend with the surrounding environment. The landscape plan shows a variety of large evergreen trees along the front portion of the project, which will also help obscure the structure from the south. The open space areas located north and east of the project site containing an established oak woodland will screen the structure when viewed from James Way and adjacent Rancho Grande residences. Analysis of Significance: Less than significant. XIV CULTURALRESOURCES Archaeologist Robert Gibson conducted a phase one archaeological surface survey on the site, and no significant historic or prehistoric archaeological materials were found. Based on the survey, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on any known cultural resources. If during construction excavation, any buried orisolated prehistoric cultural materials or historic features are unearthed, work in thaT area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can examine them and appropriate recommendations made as outlined in CEQA. In such an event, Robert Gibson or the Community Development Department of the City of Arroyo Grande should be contacted. Analysis of Significance: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 24. The following note shall be placed on the grading and improvement plans for the project: "In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, and archeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be halted until the City has reviewed the resources for their significance. If human remains (burials) are encountered, the County Coroner 1781-4513) shall be contacted immediately. The applicant may be required to provide archaeological studies and/or mitigation measures." Monitoring: Construction plans shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure the note is in place. Responsibie Department: Public Works Department Timeframe: Prior to issuance of grading permit �'1�i RECREATION The proposed project would increase demand for City park and recreational facilities. In this case, the Parks and Recreation Director has indicated that this impact would be mitigated by the City's Standard Condition requiring payment of the park development fee. Anaiysis of Significance: Potentially significant uniess mitigated. Mitigation Measure: 25. The applicant shall pay all appiicable park development fees to the City. Monitoring: Responsible Oepartment: Timeframe: The applicaM shall pay the park development fees to the City. Parks and Recreation Department Prior to issuance of building permit 14 ATTACHME�T A PRELIMINARY SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR HOUSING 579 CAMINO MERCADO ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL02497-1 Prepared for CENTRAL COAST REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ATTN: MR. GARY YOUNG 2S 15 MESA ALTA LANE ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 93420 Prepared by GEOSOLUTIONS, INC. 220 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORDIIA 93401 (805) 543-8539 � �_"i �.,' `� - : . . . :. . :,_,. october4,zoo� ;uv 1 `.; 2C01 �r , ' . ' L � _ ..: a .�.-. ��=i'i _. . . _..... TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................:........................... 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................... 3.0 SUB-SURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ......................................... 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 4.1 Ciearing and Stripping ...................................................... 4.2 Prepazation of Building Pad ............................................. 4.3 Preparation of Paved Areas .............................................. 4.4 Structural Fill .................................................................... 4.5 Excavating Conditions ...................................................... 4.6 Foundations ...................................................................... 4.7 Slab-On-Grade Construction ............................................ 4.8 Retaining Walls .....................................:.......................... 4.9 Pavement Design ............................................................. 4.10 Underground Facilities Construction ............................... 4.11 Surface and Sub-Surface Drainage .................................. 5.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECFINICAL SERVICES .......................... 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS.......... FIGURES Area Location Map Sih Location Map Setback Deminsions ...........................................1 ...........................................1 ...........................................2 ...........................................2 ........................................... 3 ........................................... 3 ........................................... 4 ...........................................4 ........:::................................4 ............................................ 5 ............................................ 5 ............................................ 6 ............................................ 7 ......:..................................... 8 ............................................ 9 ............................................ 9 ..........................................10 PRELIMINARY SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR HOUSING 579 CAMINO MERCADO ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL02497-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Camino Mercado Senior'Apartments development is to be located along the north side of Camino Mercado approximately 200 yards north of the intersection of West Branch Street, in the City of Arroyo Grande, Califomia. See Figure 1, Site Location Map. It is our understanding that the project will consist of building pads, connecting driveways, parking, and utilities. The driveway extends from Camino Mercado. The proposed residential units aze to be situated upon previously excavated pads located on the south flank of the east-west trending ridge. South of the proposed units, the natural slope drains toward the south. The residential units consist of two-story apartment complex and will utilize slab-on-grade floor systems. Dead and sustained live loads are anticipated to be relatively light with maximum continuous footing and column loads estimated to be on the order of 1.5 kips per ]ineal foot and 10.0 kips, respectively. The site had been previously graded, resulting in the multi-tiered building pads separated by cut slopes. II is understood that extensive volumes of soil were removed from the site, and fil] soils exist along the south side of the lower pad and along the driveway area off Camino Mercado. No records are �own documenting the proper placement of this fill, therefore it will be assumed to be non-compliant and will require removal and replacement in conformance with current engineering standards. 2.0 PURPOSE AlYD SCOPE The scope of our work for this investigation was limited to the following: Review of existing geotechnical information pertaining to the site and current site conditions. 2. A review of available published and unpublished geotechnical data pertinent to the project site including: Engineering Geology Investigation, Professional Office Building, 500 Block of Camino Mercado, Arroyo Grande, Califomia, Project SL01245-i, dated January 24, 2000. ii. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Camino Mercado Senior Apartments, City of Anoyo Grande, California, by R. Thompson Consulting, dated August 31, 2001. iii. ALTA/ACSM Survey, Altemative Living Services, Arroyo Grande, Califomia, by Garing Taylor & Associates, dated November 24, 1998. 3. Prepara[ion of this report summarizing our findings and conclusions regarding Site development. Ocrober 4, 2001 SL02497-1 In the event that there are changes in the nature, design or location of improvements are not consistent with actual design values, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and conclusions of this report modified if required. Evaluations of the soil for corrosive potential, hydrocarbons or other chemical properties are beyond the scope of this investigation. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site is underlain by bedrock units of the Paso Robles formation. These units were observed to consist of indurated, pebble conglomerate and sandstone. The relatively flat lying bedrock unit is very resistant, with no observable jointing or other fractures. During the original site grading, all topsoil and weathered bedrock had been removed from the proposed development areas. Located along the south side of the access driveway and the lower building pad, from 1 to 8 feet of fill was observed. It appears to consist of slightly silty, fine to medium sand with gravel. No documentation is lmown to exist which identifies the method of original ground preparation, placement procedure, oi compaction compliance. Therefore, the fill should be assumed to be non-conforming, requiring its removal and recompaction in compliance with current standards. As an altemative, further investigation may be performed, which could confirm compliance. Structural building design parameters within the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) aze dependent upon several factors including Site soil characteristics and faults near the Site. This data is presented below in tabular form. > > p t y s . . - ': .. �:. .' A i. 1 t _ . , : y . r .... .,_ ., , ` c .; : ° 1997 Umform Building Code,.Chapter.l6 Strucfural Design'Parameteis `_ :. , � :. ,. � �. . -,:: ' Soil Profile Type S — Stiff Soil Seismic Source Type Greater than 15 kilometers from an A fault Less than 2 kilometers from a B fault. Seismic Zone Seismic Zone 4, � 0.4 Near Source Factor N, =1.3 N„=1.6 Seismic Coefficient C, = 0.44N, = 0.44 (13) = 0.57 C,. = 0.64N� = 0.64 (1.6) =1.02 4.0 COVCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that undocumented fill be removed to hard bedrock. The removal of loose and medium dense sand and gravel is anticipated to be 1 to 8 feet. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should be present during site grading to verify over-excavated soils are properly removed to competent material. The soil can be excavated with conventional heavy earth moving equipment. Hard rock conditions may be locally encountered. Fill constructed on slopes should be benched into competent hard bedrock prior to placement. Site grading and construction of structures should ibe founded into the underlying firm competent bedrock as approved by the Engineering Geologist. October4,2001 SL02497-1 2. Our recommendations are presented as guidelines to be used by project planners and designers for improvements associated with construction of the project. These recommendations were prepared assuming that GeoSolutions, Inc. is commissioned to review final project grading and foundation plans prior to construction, and to observe and test during grading and foundation conshuction. Site development should be perfotmed in accordance with the applicable standazds o£ the City of Arroyo Grande and the Uniform Building Code. 3. The Engineering Geologist should provide field observation and testing during the grading operations and footing excavations, so that the adequacy of the Site prepazation, the acceptability of fill materials, if applicable, the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the project geotechnical specifications. Any work related to grading performed without the full lmowledge of, and under direct observation of the Engineering Geologist, may render the recommendations of this report invalid. 4.. The Engineering Geologist should be notified prior to the commencement of site clearing or grading. The Engineering Geologist should be present to observe the stripping of deleterious material and provide consultation to the Grading Contractor in the field. 4.1 Clearine and Strippin2 1. All surface and sub-surface deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building areas and disposed of off-site. This includes, but is not limited to, any debris, organic materials, construction spoils, buried utility lines, septic systems, building materials, and any other surface and sub-surface structures within proposed building areas. Trees designated for removal on the construction plans should be removed and their primary root systems grubbed under the observation of a GeoSolutions, Inc. representative. Voids left from site clearing should be cleaned and backfilled as recommended for structural fill. 2. Once the site has been cleared, the exposed ground surface should be stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic soil. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should determine the required depth of stripping at the time of work being completed. Sh including the stockpiled tree stumps, if they remain at the time of Site development, may be either disposed of off-site or stockpiled for future use in landscape areas if approved by the landscape architect. 4.2 Prenaration of Buildine Pads 1. It is anticipated that during grading operations, fill and resistant bedrock will be encountered. Where cut'slopes encounter fili, it should be removed to competent bedrock as verified by the Engineering Geologist. All colluvium and soft or weathered bedrock should be removed prior to the placement of any fill. 2. Fill slopes should not have a gradient steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The use of well-graded fill material is recommend to minimize surface instability. Intermediate drainage terraces are recommended for all fill slopes steeper than 5:1 with veRical slope height greater than 30 feet. Refer to Section 4.4 Struchiral Fill for more detaiis on fill placement. All cut slopes exposing undisturbed bedrock should be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontat to ;� veRical) with all slopes verified by the Engineering Geologist. Existing cut slopes that October4,2001 SL02497-1 exceed 1.5:1 should be suppoRed by retaining stntctures, excavated to 1.5:1, or evaluated for permanent stability. 4. During grading, a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should evaluate the need for a subdrain or back-drain system. Areas of observed seepage should be provided with sub- surface drains to release the hydrostatic pressures. Sub-surface drainage facilities may include gravel blankets, rock filled trenches or Multi-flow systems or equal. T'he drain system should discharge in a non-erosive mannerinto an approved drainage area. 5. AIl final grades should be provided with a positive drainage gradient away from foundations. Final grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Ponding of water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. 4.3 Preparation of Paved Areas 1. Pavement azeas should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches below existing grade or finished subgrade. The soil should then be moisture conditioned to produce a water content of at least 1 to 2 percent above optimum value and then compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density based on the AST'M D' 1557-91 test method. 2. Subgrade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between the time of water conditioning and compaction, and the time of placement of the pavement structural section. 4.4 Structural Fill On-site soils free of organic and deleterious materials are suitable for use as structural fill. Structural fill should not contain rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, and should have no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches in greatest dimension. 2. Imported fill should be free of organic and other deleterious material and should have very low expansion potential, with a plasticity index of 12 or less. Before delivery to the site, a sample of the proposed impOrt should be tested in our laboratory to determine i[5 suitability for use as shuctural fill. Structural fill using approved import or native should be placed in ]ayers, each not exceeding eight inches in thiclmess before compaction. On-site inorganic soil or approved imported fill should be conditioned with water, to produce a soil-water content of near optimum moisture content and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557-91. 4.5 Excavating Conditions We anticipate that excavation of on-site materials may be accomplished with standard heavy earthmoving or trenching equipment. However, locally hard rock conditions may be encountered and could require specialized equipment and techniques. October 4, 2001 4.6 Foundations SL02497-1 Conventional continuous footings and spread footings joined by grade beam of equal depth as the adjoining continuous footing may be used for support of the proposed structures. Isolated pad footings are permitted for single floor loads only. 2. For planning purposes for one and two-story construction, footings should be a minimum of 12 and 15-inches wide, respectively and founded on a minimum of 15 and 18-inches, respectively, below lowest adjacent grade in engineered fill or competent bedrock as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Minimum reinforcing should be one No.4 bar top and bottom or as directed by the project structural engineer. Final minimum footing depth and pre-saturation requirements shall be verified aRer building pad grading has been completed and the in-situ material for each building has been tested for expansitivity. 3. Allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1,800 psf may be used for continuous and pad footings founded in engineered fill or competent bedrock. This value may be increased by one-third for the inclusion of seismic or wind forces. 4. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings andlor friction between the engineered fill or competent bedrock and the bottom of the footing. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.35 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of the footings extending a minimum of 12 inches into engineered fill. The friction factor may be increased to 0.55 for footings founded into competent bedrock as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. 5. A passive resistance of 250-pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings in engineered fill and 350-pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings in competent bedrock. If friction and passive pressures are combined, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to the piacement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. Concrete should be placed only imexcavations that have been pre-moistened and are free of loose, soR soil, or debris. The depth of pre- moistoning and testing requiremen[s are to be verified by laboratory testing the expansitivity of the soils after the final rough grading of the building pads is completed. 6. The minimum footing setbacks from a descending slope must be maintained see Figure 3, Setback Dimensions. The base of all grade beams and footings should be level and be stepped as required to accommodate the slope while maintaining the minimum footing embedment. In areas subject to rockfali, greater setbacks may be required. Foundation design should conform to the requirements of Chapter 18 of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. 4.7 Slab-On-Grade Construction Concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared native materials. Preparation of subgrade to receive concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this report or supported entirely on uniform competent bedrock as verified by a representative of GeoSo]utions. Soil pre- moistening is recommended prior to the placement of concrete. October 4, 2001 SL02497-I 2. Where concrete slabs-on-grade are to be constructed, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining material to service as.a capillary break. A typical 1" x#4 concrete coarse aggregate mix is suitable for this application. Where moisture susceptible storage or floor coverings are anticipated, a 10 ml Visqueen-type membrane should be placed between the cushion and the slab to provide an effective vapor barrier, and to minimize moisture condensation under the floor covering. It is suggested that a 2-inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. Moisture condensation under floor coverings has become critical due to the use of water- soluble adhesives; therefore it is suggested that moisture sensitive slabs not be constructed during inclement weather conditions. 3. Concrete slab-on-grades should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center both ways at or slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches. The aforementioned reinforcement may be used for anticipated uniform floor loads not exceeding 200 ps£ If floor loads greater than 200 psf are anticipated, a structural engineer should evaluate the slab design. 4. Concrete for all slabs should be placed at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. If fibers (Fibermesh) are used to aid in the control of cracking, a water-reducing admixture may be added to the concrete to increase slump while maintaining a waterlcement ratio, which will limit excessive shrinkage. Control joints should be constructed as required to control cracking. 4.8 Retainine Walls 1. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures from adjacent soi(s and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. We recommend using the following lateral pressures for design of retaining walls of 10 feet or less in height at the site. i, The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist shall address individual re[aining walls having heights exceeding 10 feet individually following an examination of the site. October4,2001 SL02497-I 2. Retaining wall foundations or keyways should be Founded a minimum 12 inches into engineered fill or competent bedrock. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the engineered fill and the concrete footings. The friction factor may be increased to 0.55 for footings founded into competent bedrock as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Irt addition to the lateral soil pressure given above, the retaining walls should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles aze required to operate within 10 feet of a wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account through design. 4. The above-recommended pressures aze based on the assumption that sufficient sub-surface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of filter material should be a minimum of 18 inch thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to within 12 inches of the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of water conditioned, compacted, clayey soil. A 4-inch diameter drain pipe (Schedule 40 PVC) should be installed neaz the bottom of the filter blanket with perfontions facing down. The drainpipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material. A typical i" x#4 concrete coarse aggregate mix is a suitable filter material. For hydrostatic loading conditions (i.e. no free drainage behind retaining wall), an additional loading of 45 pcf equivalent fluid weight shou(d be added to the above soil pressures. If it is necessary to design ietaining structures for submerged conditions; the allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50%. In addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. 6. Additional forces may be imparted to retaining walls during an earthquake. In the absence of a rigorous seismic analysis, a peak effective ground acceleration of 0.4g for UBC Seismic Zone 4 may be used for design. 7. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of the walls. 8, The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be considered for any basement construction, and for building walls that retain earth. 4.9 Pavement Desien 1. All paving construction and materials used should conform to applicable sections of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications, State of Califomia, Department of Transportation. 2. As indicated previously, the top 12 inches of sub-grade soil under pavements should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557- 91 test method at slightly above optimum. Aggregate bases and sub-bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on the aforementioned test method. October 4, 2001 SL02497-1 3. The following table provides the recommended pavement section based on an assumed R- Value of 30 based on R-Value tested and the Califomia Department of Transportation Highway Design � Manual Section 608.4(2). Final design pavement section will be determined after preliminary grading is complete and the California Test Method No. 301- F test is performed on a representative pavement sub-soil sample encountered at the Site. T.I. � A.C. (in.) � A.B (in.) 5.0 2.50 7 5.5 3.00 8 6.0 3.25 8 6.5 3.50 10 �,p 4.00 9 �.5 4.25 11 g,p 4.50 12 T.I. = Traffic Index A.0 = Asphaltic Concrete meeting Caltrans Specification for • Class II Asphatt Concrete A.B. = Aggregate Base meeting Caltrans Specificafion for Class II Aggregate Base (R-Value = 78 Minimum) 4. A minimum of 6 inches of Class II aggregate base is recommended beneath all asphaltic concrete pavement sections and all sections should be crowned for good drainage. All asphalt pavement construction and materials used should conform to Sections 25, 26 and 39 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications, State of Califomia, Department of Transportation. 4.10 Undereround Facilities Construction 1. T'he attention of contractors, particularly the underground contractors, should be drawn to the State of California Construction Safety Orders for "Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork". Trenches or excavations greater than 5 Feet in depth should be shored o� sioped back in accord with OSHA Regulations prior to entry. , 2. For purposes of this section of the report, bedding is defined as material placed in a trench up to 1 foot above a utility pipe and backfill is all material placed in the trench above the bedding. Un]ess concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, free-draining sand should be used as bedding. Sand to be used as bedding, should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability and to measure its compaction characteristics. Sand bedding should be compacted by mechanical means to achieve at least 90 percent relarive compaction based on ASTM D1557-91. ' i1 ,� October4,2001 SL02497-1 3. On-site inorganic soil, or approved import, may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be conditioned with water (or allowed to dry), to produce a soil water content of about 2 to 3 percent above the optimum value and placed in horizontal layers, each not exceeding 8 inches in thiclmess before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91. The top lift of trench backfill under vehicle pavements should be compacted to she requirements given in report section, "Site Prepara�ion, Grading and Compaction" for vehicle pavement sub-grades. Trench walls must kept moist prior to and during backfill p]acement. 4.11 Surface and Sub-Surface Drainaee 1. Concentrated surface water runoff within or immediately adjacent to the Site should be conveyed in pipes or in lined channels to discharge areas that are relatively level or that are adequately protected against erosion. 2. Water from roof downspouts should be conveyed in pipes that discharge in controlled drainage localities. Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and promote drainage of surface water away from building foundation§, edges of pavements and sidewalks. For soil areas we recommend that a minimum of four percent gradient be maintained. 3. Careful attention should be paid to erosion protection of soil surfaces adjacent to the edges of roads, curbs and sidewalks, and in other areas where hazd edges of structures may cause concentrated flow of surface water runof£ Erosion resistant matting such as Miramat, or other similar products, may be considered for lining drainage channels. 4. Sub-drains should be placed in established drainage courses and potential seepage areas. The location of sub-drains should be deternuned after a review of the grading plan. The sub-drain outlets should extend into suitable facilities or connected to the proposed storm drain system or existing drainage control facilities. The outlet pipe should consist of an non-perforated pipe the same diameter as the perforated pipe. 5. Maintenance of slopes is important to their long-term performance. Precautions that can be taken include planting with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect, and not over-imgating, a primary source of surficial failures. 5.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of trenches and on the continuity of the sub-surface conditions encountered. It is assumed that GeoSolutions, Inc. will be retained to perform the following services: 1. Consultation during plan development; 2. Plan review of grading drainage and foundation documents prior to construction; n inspections and testing as required including, but not limited to, stripping, grading, ting, backfill placement, imported materials, expansion index testing, footing where required, pre-moistening testing if required, and compaction. October4,2001 SL02497-1 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS It should be noted that it is the responsibility GeoSolutions, Inc. a minimum of 48 hours excavations can commence at this site. of the ovmer or his/her representative to notify before any stripping, grading, or foundation 2, The recommendations of ihis report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the site GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The ovmer or his/ her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subconhactors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they be due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of three years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigtted at (805) 543-8539. Sincerely, GEOSOL @�¢i1�.FQ ��S P Pp A. p� �. ..__ � NO-G * ENG NE N GEOLOGIST Richard A. �ds4 O �L�j Senior EnQin ��f'.,e,a p$i�j RAP/JLO ? O No.22058 � � � E � r CN a Jo a Louise Otto, P AT F OF CA�� nior Engineer CE22056 UBetty\Geosolutions4Soil Engincering Reports�SL02497-1 579 Camino Mercado�SL02497-1 579 Caznino Mercado ser.doc FIGURES Area Location Map Site Location Map Setback Deminsions P(smo Beach � m � ` � � O Arroyo Grande ,•• �yernih\ �Qa 0 Grover Beach BA56 MAP PROVIDED BY R THOMPSON CONSU[,TING GeoSolutions, Inc. 220 High S'treet San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)543-8539 Fax:(805)543-2171 101 This Pro ject . . �.� q ��h s� Vicinity Map r� scale SITE LOCATION MAP 579 CAMINO MERCADO ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA FIGURE PROJECT SL02497-1 BASE MAP PROVIDED BY R THO�APSON CONSULTING GeoSolutions, Inc. 220 High Strcct San Luis Obispo, CA 9340L (805)543-8539 Fax:(805)543-21�1 -_ _ -- -- —�_� � _ -- � � --�_ . CaminoMerqdo � _�=-�_— �- ��- 0_�_ -_J � -- �__ SITE PLAN 579 CAMINO MERCADO ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA FIGURE z PROJECT SL02497-I FACE OF FOOTING TOP OF SLOPE � FACE OF STRUCTURE I TOE OF SLOPE HYL BUT NEED T�OT EXCEED 15 FT. (4572 mm) MAX. GeoSolutions, Inc. 220 High Stccet San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fR051.541-R539 Fax:(805)543-2171 H/3 giJ'i' NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FT. (12 192 mm) MA7C. SETBACK DIMENSIONS 579 CAMINO MERCADO ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA H FtGURE 3 PROJECT SL02497-1 AIR POLLUTION ATTACHMENT B CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DATE: TO: FROM: November 1, 2001 Kelly Heffemon Associate Planner Anna Bertinuson /t� Air Quality Specialist �''; - � :.:. ; -.. .ii':% 1 _i ?QO1 3iTBJECT: Senior Housing and Senior Center Project Condirional Use Permit Case No. 01-010 Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the Senior Housing and Senior Center Project to construct 40 rivo-bedroom and 20 one- bedroom aparhnents and a 3,000 square foot Senior Center in City of Arroyo Grande at �79 Camino Mercado Street. The district has the following comments regarding the proposal: GENERAL COMMENTS We would first like to commend the applicant on several elements of the project design: 1. The project provides development with in the city limits with nearby access to Wal-Mart, Trader 7oe's and transit service, which will reduce dependence on driving. 2. The proposed residential buildings are two stories, resulting in a greater floor to area ratio. This creates a higher density land use, making t�ansit services more viable and effective. 3. The project combines a senior center and apartments on the same site, which has the potenrial to decrease dependence on driving. 4. The project provides a pedesriian path with the inclusion of landings, which creates a friendly pedestrian environment: 5. The project will add a bus stop to the Camino Mercado Street. SPECIFIC C0�IMENTS Staff calculations of the potential construction and operational emissions from this source indicate the projects will not fall within the Class I category, thus wil] not require an Environmental Impact Report. The project does however exceed the 10-]bs/day mitigation threshold. Therefore, we are recommending the following mitigation measures to be included in the project design and implementation. STTE DESIGN MEASURES Again, the District would like to commend the applicant on the inclusion of a pedesh path, which leads to the bus stop. However, the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan does not clearly demonstrate how pedesh will safely navigate from upper levels and through parking lots to the start of the pedeshian path. The District recommends that the path be linked with safe and handicap accessible access from each of the buildings. DUST MiTIGATION MEASURES San Luis Obispo County exceeds the state air quality standard for PM therefore, emissions of PM�o are a high priority concem for the District. Additionally, fugitive dust emissions reduce visibility and can cause a nuisance problem for neazby properties. The Grading Notes in the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan states that the conhactor is responsible for prevenring 3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805-781-1002 cleanair@sloapcd.dst.ca.us •:• �wvw.sloapcd.dst.ca.us Senior Housing and Senior Center Project November 1, 2001 Page 2 damage or nuisances caused by dust during the construction phase of the project. In order to achieve dust control, the District recommends inclusion of the following fugitiv,e dust mirigation: • Reduce the amount of disturbed azea where possible. • Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airbome dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency should be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. • All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. • Permanent dust conh�ol measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturtiag acti�i.ies • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. • All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least rivo feet. of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Increasing the energy efficiency at the site will decrease the demand on electrical supply, thus reducing emissions at the power piant source while saving money for the occupant. Therefore, the Dish recommends the following Energy Efficiency Measures: ♦ Shade tree planting along southem exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. ♦ Use built-in energy efficient appliances, where applicable. ♦ Use double-pane windows. ♦ Use sodium streetlights. ♦ Use energy efficient interior lighting. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the project. If you have any questions or concems regarding these comments please contact me at 781-5912. H:bis\planVesponse�24l6.AIB.doc ATTACHMENT C CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS Traffic Anafysis August 13, 2001 Prepared By: Penfield 8z Smith Engineers, Surveyors, Planners 805.963.9532 �'; _ . . ' 3 k� �; �.:� . :; %:;2001 W.O. 14,405.01 COMPi�..�,., , �_�___r�:� �T DEPI. _Penfieid ��Smith _ _ TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALY515- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS INTRODUCTION Penfield & Smith, in coordination with the City of Arroyo Grande, has prepazed the following traffic impact analysis for the proposed Camino Mercado Senior Apartments. The project is located at 597 Camino Mercado in the City of Arroyo Grande. This analysis includes an assessment of the existing and projected future traffic conditions within the study azea, determines the expected trip generation rate for the project, and evaluates the potential traffic irnpacts associated with the project. PRO]ECT DESCRIPTION The project is proposing to constntct a 60 unit senior apartment building, including 40 two-bedroom units and 20 one-bedroom apartments. The one-bedroom apartments are planned to be approximately 725 square feet and the two-bedroom apartments will be approximately 925 squaze feet. The facility is also proposing to include a 3,000 squaze foot Senior Center that will be open to both the apartment tenants, as well as the senior community as a whole. The curb frontage this street. A bus City's bus system land uses. Study Area along Camino Mercado will be painted red to prohibit parking along stop will also be installed to aid in providing tenants access to the The proposed site is surrounded by commercial and residential The project study area is generally bounded by West Branch Street to the west and Rancho Pazkway to the east. A vicinity map is presented in Exhibit 1 on the following page. As part of this analysis, the City of Arroyo Grande requested that the following intersections be evaluated to assess the potential traffic related impacts during the AM and PM peak hour. Studv Intersections • West Branch Street at Oak Park Boulevazd; . West Branch Street at Camino Mercado and High�vay 101 NB Ramps; • West Branch Street at Rancho Parkway; . West Branch Street at Brisco Road; and . Brisco Road at Highway 101 NB Ramps. PenTield & Smith TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE The City of Arroyo Grande's minimum level of service (LOS) standazd is LOS C, with LOS D acceptable on a short-term basis provided that there is a fi.tnded and scheduled improvement identified that will provide a minunum of LOS C when implemented. The City has adopted thresholds to determine when an unpact is considered significant. For signalized intersections, the foliowing thresholds have been set. Table 1 Level of Service �LOS) 0 F Per Lane Peak Hour Trips Added to Critical Movements >45 >15 >10 >5 Geaerated Total Project Peak Hour Trip Geaeratioa 150-540 � 30-12C 15-60 on Projected Trips Project Peak Iiour Trips Eatering a Critical Iatersectio: 90-180 30-60 1 For unsignalized intersections, a sign�cant impact can be determined when the additional project or project plus cumulative traffic'decreases the intersection level of service to D or below. PRO]ECT IMPACTS The following section evaluates the potential impacts associated with the addition of the project generated traffic on the azea roadway system. Included in this analysis aze the estimated trips generated by both the apartment complex and the senior center. Project Trip Generation Typically the ITE Trip Generation Reference Manual is used to estimate the number of trips that a proposed land use could generate on the road system. However, due to the small number of case studies for the land uses planned for this project, actual traffic counts were conducted at similaz local facilities. Penfield & Smith conducted traffic counts at the Pazkview Manor Apartment building in Arroyo Grandet and the Morro Bay Senior Centerz on August 7, 2001 through August 9, 2001. The counts �vere taken from 7-9 AM and from 4-6 PM at both locations. The count data for the Park View Manor Apaztments is summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the apartments generated appro�cimately 8 trips during the AM peak hour and 7 trips during the PM peak hour. P&S staff observed that most of the trips were employee/volunteer generated trips. These trip generation rates equate to ' Parkview Manor Apartments, 365 South Elm Street, Arroyo Grande - 62 Apartments 2 Morro Bay Senior Center, 1001 Kennedy Way, Morro Bay - estimated 5,900 square feet of ineeting space. Pen£eld B Smith .K7 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS 0.13 trips per unit during the AM peak hour and 0.11 trips per unit during the PM peak hour. These rates are slighUy higher than the rates listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for this type of use. Actual Counts Table 2 v Manor Trip Geaera AM Peak Hour In Out Total 4 4 8 OFi 0.06 0.13 Rates PM Peak Hour In Out Total 4 3 7 0.06 0.05 0.11 Traffic counts were also gathered at the Morro Bay Community and Senior Center. It is estimated that approxunately two-thirds of the Center is dedicated to "community programs" and the remaining one third of the center is associated with the senior programs. It should also be mentioned that P&S staff observed that most of the trips generated were related to the community center and very few were directed towazds the senior center. Of the trips associated with the senior center, a majority of them were "dial-a-ride" trips. Table 3 below summarizes the total trips observed for the senior usage of the facility. Moao Senior Table 3 Senior/Communit Center Tri AM Peak Hour 7:30 - 8:30 AM In Out Total In 8 3 11 6 Generatioa PM Peak Hour Out 6 Using the count data collected at both locations, a trip generation rate for the Camino Mercado Senior Apartment Project and Senior Center was found. This is presented in Table 4. Table 4 Estimated Proiect Trip Generation Land Use Size rooms SF AM Peak Hour In Out Tota] 4 4 8 0.06 0.06 0.13 8 3 11 12 7 19 PM Peak Hour In Out Total 4 3 7 0.06 0.05 0.11 6 6 12 10 9 19 As sho«m in Table 4, the project is expected to generate 19 trips during the AM peak hour and 19 trips during the PM peak hour. These trip generation estimates are conservative due to the proximity of the proposed apartments and senior center. With the senior center proposed to be located adjacent to the senior apartments, there would be a reduced need to drive from the apaztments to the center for any of the activities. Therefore, it is anticipated that many of the center users will walk from the adjacent apartment complex and thus will not add any additional trips to the road ' Summer Children's Programs Penfield 8 Smith 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS system. In addition, the Morro Bay Senior Center is neazly double the size of the proposed senior center. Therefore, the estimated trips aze expected to be siightly lower than the number of trips observed at the Morro Bay facility. As such, the estimated trip generation for this project is considered to be conservative. Project Trip Distribution The project related traffic for the AM peak hour (19 trips) and the PM peak hour (19 trips) were distributed and assigned to the local street network based on the type of existing land uses, current traffic flows in Arroyo Grande, and a lrnowledge of the local street network and travel pattems. In general, the project traffic was distributed as follows: Proiect Trip Distribution North on US 101, using Camino Mercado and Oak Park ramps South on US 101, using Camino Mercado, Oak Pazk, & El Camino Real ramps South on Oak Park Boulevazd North on Rancho Parkway South on West Branch Street Local Shopping/Medical Office Trips Total Project Traffic 25% 20% 20% 10% 15% 10% 100% For small projects, it is difFicult to estimate the travel patterns and trip distribution with less than 5 peak hour trips.. Distribution of traffic flows at less than 5 trips cannot be reliably made with certainty and is beyond that which is reasonable traffic engineering practice. Therefore for this project, the assignment of ineasurable project traffic beyond the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps is not technically reliable. The project will however, add 16 trips to Yhis interchange during the AM peak hour and 16 trips during the PM peak hour. Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps Based on the level of service information provided in the City of Arroyo Grande Circulation Element (July 2001), the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps is cunently operating at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. This is summarized in Table 5. Table 5 �etion Level of Intersection Traffic I AM Peak PM Peak Control Hour LOS Hour LOS West Branch Street at Camino Prcado/Hiehwav 101 NB Ram� Irom the Ciry ot Artoyo All-Way Stop I10.3 sec/vehl 19.1 sec/veh LOS B LOS C Element (July 2001) Based on the City's guidelines previously described, the project added trips (16 at this intersection) falls below the significant impact threshold of 90 peak hour trips for Penfield 8 Smith TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- CAMINO MERCADO SENIOR APARTMENTS existing conditions. Therefore the project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts under the existing conditions. Under future traffic conditions, the intersection is projected to degrade to LOS F during the PM peak hour assuming no change to the stop sign control. Therefore the project would contribute to a significant impact at this intersection under the future conditions. This is presented in Table 6. Future Intersection Table 6 ction I,evel Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Control Hour LOS Hour LOS West Branch Street at Camino 11.4 sec/veh 50.5 sec/veh [ercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps �1-Way Stop LOS B LOS F •LOS obtained from the City oCArroyo Grande (Juty This intersection however, is scheduled and funded Yo be signalized to mitigate the future traffic conditions of other development. With tlie signalization of this intersection, it is forecast to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. Therefore, as there is a scheduled and funded improvement at this location, the project should contribute iYs fair shaze cost to the improvement of this intersection (1% of $150,000 estimated cost of traffic signal or $1,500) to mitigate the project impacts. SUMMARY This analysis has assessed the existing and future trafFic conditions within the study area, determined the expected trip generation rate for the project, and evaluated the potential traffic impacts associated with the project. Based on actual field traffic count data, the project is expected to generate 19 trips during the AM peak hour and 19 trips during the PM peak hour. Given the relatively small size of the project, the number of trips generated will not impact the study intetsections under the existing conditions. Approximately 85% of the project traffic (16 trips during the AM peak hour and 16 trips during the PM peak hour) will travel through the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps. Hotvever, beyond this intersection the number of trips disburses to less than 5 trips and therefore the assignment of project traffic is not technically reliable beyond this location. The West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps currently operates at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Therefore, based on the City's guidelines, the project added trips to this intersection falls below the significant impact threshold of 90 peak hour trips for existing conditions. Therefore the project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts to this intersection. Under the future trafFic conditions, the West Branch intersection at Camino Mercado/Highway 101 NB Ramps will degrade to LOS F without the proposed signalization. Therefore, the project should contribute iYs fair shaze cost to the improvement of this intersection (1% of $150,000 estimated cost of traffic signal or $1,500). Penfield & Smith L _ � � AON+£SiM001+EGM1�CO�.VX .august i l. 1`)99 ICen Gelfazb, Bsq. ManorCare Heal[h Serviees, Inc. 7361 Calhoun Placa, Suite 3u0 Ruckvill�. .�iD 3US5> Rc: Piymo Clarl:ia Survey Arroyo Grande, Californi;+ D&M No 42495-OU2-I55 Dcnr Mr. Gelfarb: ATTACHMENT D 71U1 Wi�msin A�enue. $Ui[c 7UG Bcfhcsda. Mary}incl2f�A14-4h70 301 652 ]215 Td � 3U1 F56 8059 Fv This lttter rapoits th� results of the rare plant survcy you requested on the 3.48-acre property in pn•oyo Gt�nde, Califomia. Dautes and Moorc botani�t Jim RocKe conducttd a a-urvey of the property on May 28, 1999• The properry is located immediately north of highway 101, north uf Caittino Mercado iii tlie City of Arroyo Graude. The surruunding land use is commercial a�id rr.sidci:tiul devtlopmetit. The sitt has been giaded and tetTaccd resulRng ui mosdy distui��ed and nuu-nativa grassltutd habit3t .vith coast live oaks {Quercus vgrifolia) scattzred az'ound die peripliery of tht site (Figtitrt 1). Tlie dis[urbrd patch of coasul �age scrub ou the couth alopa of the prup�Ry consists of Califomia sagebn�sh (Arreuiisia ca11a•nica) and deerweed (Lonrs scop�rrrur) With non-nativ� grasses such as wild o•st (Aveno sp.) ICd btouie (Bromus madrirensls �sp. rirbet�s), ai�d darnel (Z��liuni teu�ufe�uum). The total cover of co:utal sage scnlb spccizs does not exceed 15%. Tltc siu. also contains two areas tha[ support wttland vagetation (Figurt 1). I�Io wacer �vas pres��ir in chese areas during ti�z survey. However, the presence of l�igh water marks and dry, crackcd soii 9LLR K'aLCC W:13 ,•ecEncly present. The area sttpports tlir wetland species rush �J�ac:�s sppJ. bulrush (Scirptu sp.) aud spikerush (EleocGaris sp.). A second, smaltcr area ]ocarccl on tliz terrace to the nonh also suppoTU tliase species, as well as brass buttons (C'otr�lre coro,�opifoliaj, but this plant cover is loss deiva. The local hydrologic tlow pattem chat citared rhesc wecland areas is aiiificiTlly dcrivcd. Grading �ctivities have produced slope and sl�elf tupography across the sitn allowing water �o Y ol ereating au artihcial onviru�unent sufficienrly suitable to support thzse h dro h c s cies. No sA�xmbeds or natural druinage channtl5 wert tvident onsitr; theretore, the sice doos not support juiisdicrional watlands duc to thc lsck of aypropriaEe natural hydro]ogy an3 hydric soils. ^ Pismo Clarkia (Clnrkia epeciosa ecp. immncu�utu) W3S found iu three PoPulations alang th� we�t�m parccl boundary. This sprcics is listed as endanSered by the federal goveinmo�u and is a Statc Rarc Pl�nt. The Califurnia Naciva P�ant Socicry has includcd sliis spacies oi� ics Lisc tB, u•h�ch �h� Califomi� Dep�runent of Fish and Gamo (CDFG) infozuiatly uses as iu candidate list for futurc lisungs nnder tht Califomia Ends�igerni Specia Act (CESA). The populauons ware �n ;andy soil, in relatively open areas within nou-nativt grasslaztd. Populations varied in size fium :5 tu SU individuals each, fur a coal of 75 to 15Q plant� onsito. �� ,?UG 3 1 2001 C`?Y r� c.:':(;t;`ii3 ;?=iA''�.'.� ,.. . i :� T. �^'.:._ ':'i'�i`�(Ucv��i��?;i^ii': _° «rs �� DAMES & MOORE , _._ .._ _�.`:� AD.wE53�.�00NPGROUPCOM('N+Y MsnuYCcrc Heulch 3crvicas Augus� I l, 19'19 Pagr ? Stction 9 of �ht F�deral Endan�ered Species Act (FESA) prohibics thc removal and rzduction to possession (i.e., cullection) uf endaugered and thrca�cn�d planu from lands under Fedaral juiisdiction. Tt hirthtr prohibiu the removal, cutting, digging, damaga, or destruction of ]isted pianTS on :ury other aiea in 1:nowing violation of a stata law or regulation. Pla��u, however, �o noi cnjoy �(ie fuli protcction accorded animals under this secuon sgains� "take" (i.e., harass, harm [�vhich includes signiftcaut habitat modi5cation or dzgradationJ, pucsuz, hunt, shoot, wound, Idlf, crap CHpCIIIY or attempt to eugage !n any such conduct). Unlike listcd animal specie�, federal ti�crd plant species located on private propeRy aze not re�ulated under the FESA: FFSR SEC. 9!'cr1�21 Eacept as providzd in sectious 6(�)(2) and 10 of this Act, with respect to any e�dangerecl species of plants listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act, it is unlawfiil fur any person subj�ct to the jurisdiction of the United States to- (A.) impon any s�ich species into, or expen any such specie� from, rh� Unitzd 5tates; (B)' rrnwve nud reduce to possession aeiy such species front ��r��e a�rder Faderu! iw•isdicrio� nialiciuusly damage or destioy any such species on any such azea; or remove, cut, dig up, ox damage or destroy ony such spccics on any otlier araa in knowing violation of any law or regulation of a�iy stste or in the courst of any violation of a stete cmninal [respass Iaw; (C) dclivcr, receiva, carry, nansport, or ship in interstace or forei� eommerce, by auy means whatsoever and in ehe course of a eouunercial activiry, any such species; (D) sell or offer fur sale in interstate or foreign commene any such spccics; dr `�) listed pursuan to scct on 4 of his�Act promulgaled by the Sec tary pur uanano authoiity pruvickd by ttus Act. Plaut specics designsted by CDFG as State FCare aze not regulaced undcr [h� CESA; howevar, landowners intending to ruodify their properry are required to notify CDFG at least 10 days u� advancc to allow for salvage of the rarz plant resource: Fi •h a�Gatue Corle i 973 c of this sectioi�, where tl�e Notwithst:tnding the provisions of sttbdivisions (a) :u�d (b) ownar of land has bzen notified by che departmenc pursuan[ to Section 1903.5 that a ra��a or endangered na�ive pl•ant is growing on such land, the owner shall notify die dzparnnent at Icast 10 duyy in advai�ce of chan�ing the land use to allow for SalvaPt of Such p1anL. The failura by the department to salvage such plant wichin 10 days of notificatiou sh�ll �utiela the owner of [he land io proceEd wi[hout regazd to shis chapecr. The local laud use permitting agency, acting as the Lead Agency uuder the Califomia Environmartul Quality Act (CEQA), can determiite that unavoidablt impacts to Species oKar.waid-k• ,; -• � � � ; _�:; DAMES & MOORE _c7 wW+�EscMOORCGPOLIPCO.MfnNy MunorC�re Health Srtvices - Augu>[ 1 I, 1999 Y:,g� 3 ro�u�nizad as "censitive 6y ihe state or federal rasource agencies can be covsiderad signilicant and r�quire micigatioii. This essentially creats seusitive species, regardless of die'u listing stanu, tliz s:�me as formally 4isted spocics and a uiitigation progratn ceyuued as part of tlie land use p�rmi�rin� proccss. Dames k Mu�rc's inquiria with die Ciry of Arroyo Grande Plattning Drpar[ment indicated that this jurisdiction has no fonna] policy or guidelines dictatiug their [reatenent of scusi[ive spccies. Tluy rCSOlve this issue on a case-by-case basis. In swnmary the pTesEnce of Pismo Clulcia nlong d�c sitt boundary doas noc preclude further da��elopmcnt uf the site. No resource agtncy (i.e., USFWS. CDFG) has jt�risdiction ov� this sptcific rura plant spccicy on private land; tUe City uf Arroyo Crrande wfll dicta�e under CEQA l,ow :l�is ;ssua wouid be �ddressed. Duz to the rate status and the federa! listing of the Pismo Clarkia, Dames & Moore recommends the following: . Site development plmis should specify thac grading and other types of disiurbancz be preclude3 froin x 25 foot buffer zone azound the Pismo Ciarkia popularions to uiinimize impacts. A fancz an3 appzopriata sigrtago slwuid be placed around tht buffer zo�ie to prccludz impacts to Pismo Clarkia during construction. . Th� �itc development plan specifying the abuvt plan should be submittcd to dic CDFG at lcast lU days in advancc oi d�e statt of sitr woric. . It' a 2i loot buffer zune is not feasible based on proposed site dcvetopmeut, che Ciry of Arruyo C)randc Planr�ing Depurtmenc, undar CEQA, could Tequire the purdiase of hablt2t offsite supporting a comparabla population uf Pismo Clarkia. Please call eieher of d�e undersigned if you have any questions or if Danies � Moor� can be of futther assistaucz. Sincerely, DAM6S & 11'IOURE P� ��,, patrick J. Mock, Ph.D. Senior Biologist s� crou M�a � / �?�l � Micl�ael J. Wolf Associatt Attachtncnta ar�., v+.�r.a.:.+. DAMES & MOORE ----- ---. --- . ._. .--- . -- f pu.�ES d MOORE GRO�W COmP.v7y ManorCxs Heald� Secvices August11,199 Page 4 Arroyo Grande Property Plant Species List j cs' �tvG[OSPFRh1 (FLOWERING PL.�NTS) MONQCO'1'Y ON ' CYPERACF.AE — Sedge Fmnily £le�charis sp. —>pikerush Jc(rpus sp. - bulsuab IRIDACEAE — Iria Family 5i�yrincdiun� bellum — bluc-zyzd gtas> JUi'1CaCEnE—Rush Family J@qC115 SP. � NS1L POACEA£ - Graa� Femily . •.1 v¢n�+ b�n•Gam - almdcr wild uat �Bromtu urcnnriut •$swnu.c dimuhus — ripgu[ brome 'B. nraAritrnsia ssp. tubens - foxWil chtss •Cu� ni�faria sp. — pamNas t ras� •Lo!!um �en�ulanmm - danul Nr�ssr!!a crrnun DiC��AE .4I'LOACEAE — Fig•Maiigold Family C�upoGrutut . dulir — fig-mari8old ANAC?1RDIACEAE — Sumoc Family T�,xrcudendron divrrsilabmn — poiion o•sk �STEKACFAE - Suntlowtr Famity Artemis(a caltforntca — Celifomia s�Scbn�h Bucchnris pilularis - �oyo[e btush •Cri+ruurea solsriiinlis - yellow starthistle •Cinium vvlgvre — bu11 thistic 'Condn toronopff'oJkr — braaa buaous Gnr�y�aliwn therniale var. canascens Na�¢+'dio squarra+a vor. aqumrusu — raw-too�hod goSdcnbuaL •Sunrl+ut ole� a�'tui larruou.m u��inale �ortuiwn dundelion CACiACEAE — Cactus fsmily Upunria liuorvlis — cuaeml yricYly pcm riYtC.wc%Cwdc •• �,.�; � DAMES & MOORE _. �--� ---� _ .. . . _.... _.... _._ ��.^;�'.A,J.=" ` A WMFS 6 MOORE CJ10uP COMPANy ManocCarc Hrrith Savitzs pugu�t11,1999 Pagc � EUPHORBIACEAE — Spurge Fsmity Er — curkey ntullrin FASACEAE - Pca Fnmily Lorus pw:;himu+s Luurs srupurius — deerwecd Lupin�rt �p. Viciu �nnerlrana FAG.�CEpE - Oak Fa�nily llue�cus �iYrilo/ia - co�st livc osk GEftA.^1L10EAE - Geranium FamAy 'E�odium cicurarium - red-stem filarea LAhiIACfiAE - bSinc Family Shcvfa sparhareu YaPAVERICEAE - Poppy Family £rchoL-ia calrfo�rlca - Catifomia poppy PLA1vTAGINACEAE - Plsnrain Farrdly Plnnrago sp. POLEMONIaCEAE — Phlox Fanuly Navarrriia sp. POLYGOhACEAF — Buckwheat Faauly Putygonum Sp. PORTUI..ICACEAE — Purslsne Fam�ly Claytnnict sp. PRIMULACEAE - Primcose Family •.4nagnllis a1'rnsis - sculet piuryeruel RUBIACEAE - Madder Family Gnlium apa�i��e - bedsca W' SCROPHiJLARL�CEAE - Figwort Farztily Mimr.lus aurontincvs — ud btuh monkcy flowtr 61rmulut sr. Fra unica arvansis — speedwcll SOLaNACEAE — NightsAado Family Solmtum duuglatii � 2`omcnclucurc from Hic{mun (1993) an.l Br�uchamp (1966). • Nou-native spttics ptGCaf wwWwiOe DAMES & MOORE � --��---- -- • - . . __._...... . . _.._._ ...---._.... w WMES a M000.E CAOUP CO+K'�M' ManurCue Heal[h Szrvices Augwr I1, 1999 Pegc 6 RFFERENCF.S Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County. Sweetwatrs Ri�er Press. 241 pp. Hicln�iau, J. C. 1993. Tlie 7epson manual: higher plants of Califomia. University of Ca]ifornia Press, Berkeley, Califonua 14U0 pp. oA'Ka woed�i!• : L 0 � � a � 3� - b � � M a � � B x � � , ., � . �� , , , � � � � a.. n � j� ii ro �-� .r C �i i 4^ z i.. �' =" �. a ' � ' � �." v� � '�- 2 �.- f - a z _�� 1 � � �'� � � , � f * � F � 3 � � � �� { �� iP/ a J �/ S +��. [_�_ _�_ 8 , ��,� < g i � a cA R� N -� . �� e E:�� , F S�F.t y � �t � : r � f . // � � �t� R✓LB.W' G s �A i� i x n r � 1 ` �.�� t 4��'�M� � i7, I f��,.{�ii.. �� . R� _ i � i �- ��: ; �/ _ � .' , A � o a jA Ia i: E+ :- ,i ; �_ 3(;: -- �;��. 9�:.= � ., ,�, EE � ' ' ,j� . �� ` a ez' .i� -.. ' \} °, j � � / R;;` I ' ;�ti= � �i;�: G�1 � q �C � � �rn ,�� v n :�z U Y � = a '`'. � itt =�fi Ip i� � r :n ; m 's`4 ?,; ��i:t ''•i`c i€� r:�` `:F' . , � - � __ .1> � :? g�� : � �°r`� _ t? iai� u"r�.✓oY, k ;� lfa� _ �. . '�"t i t s :� << If ►a. �� =f S� i: ti i� S . — ,f-dux� : ,� ' �`� a :� � : •'' ; : � 1 /_ ? '� _� % '+' ii+ a�;_ 1 �� St �.a.� .�� '. Y �\ i � . a � T � , � _ ....,. : , .�i� rc.r,� p -. '�� _ 11.a. TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER 1'E� ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEV OPMENT DIRECTOR �S SUBJECT: PROPOSED PROCESS FOR TRAFFIC WAY AREA STRATEGIC PLAN DATE: JANUARY 22, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council receive information and direct staff to proceed with the proposed Traffic Way Area Strategic Plan process. FUNDING: The cost of the proposed process is estimated to be approximately $2,000. If approved, this funding would be appropriated to the General Fund in the mid- year budget report. DISCUSSION: As a result of the Mayor's business roundtable and other individual meetings, staff has begun to identify a number of issues and needs of existing businesses on Traffic Way. These issues include parking, traffic, and ability for expansion, particularly in relation to the auto dealers. Facilitating retention and expansion of existing businesses is a primary objective of the City's economic development strategy and program. Of course, the viability of the auto dealers is of particular importance to the economic health of the City due to the sales tax generation attributed to these businesses. The General Plan Update designated a portion of Tra�c Way as mixed use. The purpose of this designation is to provide flexibility to introduce new uses over time that will link to the Village core, while allowing existing businesses to remain and expand during the interim and not be limited as a nonconforming use. The specifics of the mixed use area will be established through update of the City's Development Code. As has been done with the East Grand Avenue Master Plan process, some level of assessment and analysis is necessary to develop these planning recommendations. CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED TRAFFIC WAY AREA STRATEGIC PLAN JANUARY 22, 2002 PAGE 2 In order to address both the City's business retention goals and Development Code recommendations for the Traffic Way mixed use area, staff recommends the City initiate a planning process to develop an area strategic plan. The objectives of the process will be to assess existing business needs, identify options for both land uses and Redevelopment opportunities, and then develop recommendations. This may include zoning proposals, revised design guidelines and/or a separate enhancement plan for the area. Both long-range and interim short-range goals will be addressed. While the objectives of the process are similar to the East Grand Avenue Master Plan, staff recommends an abbreviated and more focused process for Traffic Way. As with East Grand Avenue, it is proposed to develop the plan with participation and input from affected property and business owners. Once the recommendations of the plan are agreed upon, staff will then provide options and recommendations for implementation, which will be pursued in conjunction with existing business and property owners. It is proposed to begin the process in February 2002 and completion is projected by May 2002. The intent is to program the recommendations derived from the planning effort for Planning Commission consideration in May and include informal meetings or workshops with area property owners and businesses prior to the presentation. If the Commission supports the findings, staff recommendations will advance to the City Council for consideration. Formal public hearings to consider rezoning, Development Code and design guideline revisions would follow. Staff has discussed potential participation in the study with the Cal Poly City and Regional Planning Department. Rather than the study serving as a class project as was done in the East Grand Avenue Master Plan, we hope to utilize the assistance of one or two students. It is proposed to complete the work with the use of Cal Poly students, in-house interns, and other in-house staff. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: - Direct staff to proceed with the proposed planning process; - Modify the proposed process and direct staff to proceed; - Direct staff to not proceed with a planning process regarding Traffic Way; - Provide staff with direction.